The 

Thornton  Shirley  Graves 

Collection  of 

18th  Century  Drama 

This  collection  began  as  the  private  col- 
lection of  Professor  Thornton  Shirley 
Graves,  when  he  was  a  member  of  the 
English  Department  of  Trinity  College, 
1913-1921. 

After  his  death  his  library  was  pur- 
chased for  the  Duke  University  Library 
by  the  Class  of  1916,  as  a  memorial  to 
their  Classmate,  John  T.  Ring. 

The  books  belonging  to  Professor 
Graves'  special  field  of  scholarly  inter- 
est were  set  aside  as  The  Thornton 
Shirley  Graves  Collection  of  18th  Cen- 
tury Drama,  and  have  since  been 
augmented. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2015 


https://archive.org/details/drjameswoodrowas121wood 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW 

AS  SEEN  BY  HIS  FRIENDS. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES 

BY 

HIS  FORMER  PUPILS,  COLLEAGUES,  and  ASSOCIATES. 


Collected  and  Edited  by  His  Daughter, 
Marion  W.  Woodrow. 


PART  I. 


PRINTED  BY  THE  R.  L.  BRYAN  COMPANY. 
COLUMBIA,  S.  C. 

1909. 


if  9.  ■  if  & 
| \-i  1  -"3.  Z 

TJ^ersity  Library 


DEDICATION. 

To  my  Mother,  of  whom  my  Father  said,  "She  aids  me  in  all 
I  undertake, "  "In  the  proudest  hour  of  my  life  she  consented 
to  receive  my  name,"  this  volume  is  lovingly  dedicated  by  their 
daughter, 

Marion  W.  Woodrow. 


CONTENTS. 


Reference  to  Pages. 


Part  I.— Character  Sketches. 

Account  appearing  in  "Who's  Who  in  America"  for  1906- 
1907   

Sketch  published  in  The  State,  of  Columbia,  and  the  News 
and  Courier,  of  Charleston,  Jan.  18,  1907,  written  by 
the  Rev.  Dr.  J.  Wm.  Flinn  

Dr.  Flinn,  who  was  of  Scotch  and  Scotch-Irish  ancestry,  was  born 
in  Marshall  County,  Miss.,  July  11,  1847 ;  entered  the  Con- 
federate Army  in  1862,  before  he  was  fifteen  years  old; 
served  as  a  soldier  for  three  years,  being  in  eighteen  great 
battles,  wounded  four  times,  and  taken  prisoner  twice;  gradu- 
ated at  the  University  of  Mississippi  in  1871,  and  at  Columbia 
Theological  Seminary  in  1875;  was  licensed  in  the  historic 
"Flinn  church"  (Second  Presbyterian)  of  Charleston,  S.  C, 
in  1875;  studied  at  the  University  of  Edinburgh  in  1875  and 
1876.  On  Dec.  10,  1876,  he  married  Miss  Jane  Ann  Adger 
Smyth,  the  daughter  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Thomas  Smyth,  pastor 
for  forty  years  of  the  Second  Presbyterian  church  of 
Charleston.  Their  five  daughters  and  one  son  are  still  living. 
In  1877  he  was  ordained  and  installed  as  pastor  of  three 
churches  in  Mecklenburg  Presbytery,  N.  C;  was  pastor  of  the 
Memorial  church  in  New  Orleans  from  1878  to  1888;  professor 
of  Moral  Philosophy  and  chaplain  of  South  Carolina  College 
from  1888  to  1905;  died  after  a  very  brief  illness  Dec.  27, 
1907.  He  received  the  honorary  degree  of  Doctor  of  Divinity 
from  Central  University,  of  Kentucky,  in  1893.  During  all 
his  ministerial  life  Dr.  Flinn  took  an  active  part  in  the  councils 
of  the  Church,  being  regular  in  his  attendance  at  the  meetings 
of  Presbytery  and  Synod,  and  being  sent  several  times  as  a 
delegate  to  the  General  Assembly.  He  carried  the  Sadie 
Means  telephone  case  through  all  the  church  courts  to  success- 
ful issue  in  the  General  Assembly  of  1894.  He  was  one  of 
the  staunchest,  most  outspoken  of  Dr.  Woodrow's  supporters 
from  beginning  to  end  of  the  evolution  controversy,  setting 
forth  clearly  Dr.  Woodrow's  two  chief  points,  namely,  the 
silence  of  Scripture  on  scientific  subjects,  and  the  doctrine 
that  God's  word  and  his  works  cannot  contradict  each  other. 


VI 


CONTENTS. 


A  Series  of  Articles  appearing  in  the  Central  Presbyterian, 
Nov.  13,  20,  and  27,  1907,  written  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  A. 
M.  Fraser,  Staunton,  Va   33 

Dr.  Fraser,  the  son  of  the  late  Judge  T.  B.  Fraser,  of  Sumter,  S.  C, 
was  born  in  Sumter  June  14,  1856;  was  prepared  for  college 
by  Mr.  Thomas  P.  McQueen,  who  taught  in  Sumter  for  forty 
years;  graduated  at  Davidson  College  in  1876,  and  at  Columbia 
Theological  Seminary  in  1880;  was  licensed  by  the  Presbytery 
of  Harmony  in  1879,  and  ordained  and  installed  as  pastor  of 
Mt.  Horeb  church,  in  the  Presbytery  of  West  Lexington,  Ky., 
in  1881.  He  married  Miss  Octavia  Blanding,  a  daughter  of 
Col.  J.  D.  Blanding,  of  Sumter,  in  1881.  In  1893  he  became 
pastor  of  the  First  church,  of  Staunton,  Va.,  which  church  he 
is  still  serving. 

Dr,  Woodrow  and  the  " Silence  of  Scripture."  An  article 
(with  additions)  published  in  the  Central  Presby- 
terian, written  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  E.  M.  Green,  of 
Danville,  Ky   47 

Dr.  Green  was  born  in  Darlington,  S.  C,  Sept.  10,  1838;  was 
prepared  for  college  in  the  Rev.  J.  W.  Baker's  School  at 
LaFayette,  Ga.;  graduated  at  Oglethorpe  University  in  1859, 
and  at  Columbia  Theological  Seminary  in  1863;  married  Miss 
Emily  Howe,  daughter  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  George  Howe,  June  24, 
1863;  commissioned  chaplain  in  the  Confederate  Army,  Dec. 
15,  1863;  ordained  in  1864;  became  pastor  of  the  church  at 
Washington,  Ga.,  1866;  had  charge  of  the  Southern  Presby- 
terian during  Dr.  Woodrow's  absence  in  Europe,  1872  to  1874; 
became  pastor  of  the  church  at  Washington,  N.  C,  1874,  and 
of  the  First  church  in  Danville,  Ky.,  in  1877,  of  which  he  is 
still  the  pastor.  He  was  Moderator  of  the  Synod  of  Kentucky 
in  1883,  and  of  the  General  Assembly  in  1898.  At  various 
times  he  was  a  Director  of  Columbia  Theological  Seminary, 
a  Curator  of  Central  University,  and  of  the  Louisville  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  which  latter  position  he  still  holds.  He  was 
intimately  associated  with  Dr.  Woodrow  from  the  time  he 
entered  Oglethorpe  University  as  a  student. 

An  Account  adapted  from  those  appearing  in  Phi  Gamma 

Delta,  1898,  and  the  Garnet  and  Black,  1899   52 

Personal  Reminiscences,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Thomas  H.  Law.  56 

Dr.  Law  was  born  in  Hartsville,  S.  C;  graduated  at  the  South 
Carolina  Military  Academy  in  1859,  and  at  Columbia  Theo- 
logical Seminary  in  1862;  was  pastor  of  Florence  and 
Lynchburg  churches,  at  that  time  in  Harmony  Presbytery; 


CONTENTS. 


VII 


evangelist  of  Charleston  Presbytery  from  1867  to  1869;  pastor 
of  the  church  at  Spartanburg,  S.  C,  for  several  years;  District 
Superintendent  and  Field  Agent  of  the  American  Bible  Society 
for  twenty  years,  his  residence  still  being  at  Spartanburg;  has 
been  Stated  Clerk  of  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  since  1875, 
and  Permanent  Clerk  of  the  General  Assembly  since  1904. 

A  Tribute,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  James  L.  Martin   68 

Recollections  and  Appreciation,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  George  L. 

Petrie   77 

Dr.  Petrie  was  born  in  Cheraw,  S.  C,  Feb.  25,  1840;  was  prepared 
for  college  in  Charleston,  S.  C,  and  Marietta,  Ga.;  graduated 
at  Oglethorpe  University  in  1859,  and  at  Columbia  Theological 
Seminary  in  1862;  was  chaplain  of  the  22nd  Alabama  Regi- 
ment of  the  Confederate  Army;  taught  for  a  few  years  after 
the  war;  was  pastor  of  the  church  at  Greenville,  Ala.,  from 
1870  to  1872,  of  that  at  Petersburg,  Va.,  from  1872  to  1878, 
and  of  that  at  Charlottesville,  Va.,  from  1878  to  the  present 
time;  received  the  honorary  degree  of  Doctor  of  Divinity  from 
Hampden-Sidney  College  in  1887. 

Recollections,  by  Rev.  Dr.  Wm.  E.  Boggs   80 

Dr.  Boggs  was  born  May  12,  1838,  at  Ahmedmeggar,  India,  where 
his  parents  were  serving  as  foreign  missionaries;  was  prepared 
for  college  in  South  Carolina;  graduated  at  South  Carolina 
College  in  1859;  entered  Columbia  Theological  Seminary  in 
1860;  enlisted  in  the  Confederate  Army  in  1861,  serving  with 
the  troops  defending  the  coast  of  South  Carolina  soon  after 
the  fall  of  Fort  Sumter;  became  chaplain  of  the  Sixth  South 
Carolina  Regiment  in  1862,  and  saw  service  with  it  until 
surrendered  by  Gen.  Lee  at  Appomattox  April  9,  1865.  He 
became  pastor  of  the  First  church  in  Columbia,  S.  C,  in  1866; 
married  Miss  Marion  Alexander,  daughter  of  Mr.  Adam 
Alexander,  of  Washington,  Ga.,  in  1870;  became  pastor  of  the 
Second  church  in  Memphis,  Tenn.,  in  1871;  of  Central  church 
in  Atlanta,  Ga.,  in  1879,  when  the  health  of  Mrs.  Boggs,  which 
had  been  shattered  by  an  attack  of  yellow  fever  in  the  great 
epidemic  of  1878  at  Memphis,  required  change  of  climate;  was 
professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  and  Church  Government 
in  Columbia  Theological  Seminary  from  1882  to  1885;  again 
became  pastor  of  the  Second  church  in  Memphis  in  1885; 
became  Chancellor  of  the  University  of  Georgia  in  1889,  and 
pastor  of  the  First  church  in  Jacksonville,  Fla.,  in  1900;  was 
Moderator  of  the  General  Assembly  in  1909;  and  is  now  Secre- 
tary of  Schools  and  Colleges. 


VIII 


CONTENTS. 


Some  Reminiscences,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Eugene  Daniel .....  86 
Dr.  Daniel  was  born  near  Livingston,  Ala.,  in  1849,  the  family- 
removing  to  Raymond,  Miss.,  during  his  infancy.  He  grad- 
uated at  Columbia  Theological  Seminary  in  1871 ;  married  Miss 
Susannah  T.  Witherspoon,  of  Camden,  S.  C,  the  same  year; 
was  licensed  by  Harmony  Presbytery,  ordained  by  Ouachita 
Presbytery,  and  was  installed  pastor  of  the  church  at  Camden, 
Ark.,  in  1871;  became  pastor  of  the  First  church  in  Memphis, 
Tenn.,  in  1875,  remaining  there  nearly  eighteen  years,  passing 
through  the  yellow  fever  epidemics  of  1878  and  1879,  having 
the  fever  himself;  was  pastor  of  the  First  church  in  Raleigh, 
N.  C,  for  ten  years,  and  has  been  pastor  of  the  church  at 
Lewisburg,  W.  Va.,  for  nearly  seven  years;  delivered  an 
address,  alternate  for  Dr.  Palmer,  before  the  General  Assembly 
at  Charlotte,  N.  C,  on  the  250th  anniversary  of  the  West- 
minster Assembly;  delivered  the  address  at  the  Memorial 
service  of  Dr.  B.  M.  Palmer  in  the  First  church  in  New 
Orleans;  received  the  honorary  degree  of  Doctor  of  Divinity 
from  the  Southwestern  Presbyterian  University. 

Some  Impressions,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  C.  R.  Hemphill   112 

Dr.  Hemphill  was  born  in  Chester,  S.  C,  April  18,  1852;  attended 
the  University  of  South  Carolina  and  that  of  Virginia, 
1868-1871;  graduated  at  Columbia  Theological  Seminary  in 
1874;  was  tutor  in  Hebrew  in  Columbia  Seminary  1874- 
1878;  married  Miss  Emma  Louise  Muller,  of  Columbia,  in 
1875;  was  Fellow  in  Greek  at  Johns  Hopkins  University,  1878 
and  1879;  professor  of  Ancient  Languages  in  the  Southwestern 
Presbyterian  University,  1879  to  1882;  professor  in  Columbia 
Seminary,  1882  to  1885;  pastor  of  the  Second  church  in  Louis- 
ville, Ky.,  1885  to  1899;  one  of  the  founders  of,  and  professor 
in,  the  Louisville  Theological  Seminary  from  1893  to  its 
consolidation  in  1901  with  the  Danville  Theological  Seminary, 
the  consolidated  institution  being  the  Kentucky  Presbyterian 
Theological  Seminary,  in  which  Dr.  Hemphill  has  been  pro- 
fessor of  New  Testament  Exegesis  and  Practical  Theology 
from  1901  to  the  present  time.  He  received  the  honorary 
degree  of  D.  D.  from  Central  University  and  Davidson  College, 
and  that  of  LL.  D.  from  Hanover  College  and  Westminster 
College.  He  was  Moderator  of  the  General  Assembly  in  1895, 
and  of  the  Synod  of  Kentucky  at  its  centennial  meeting 
in  1902. 

A  Reminiscence,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  S.  L.  Morris.  .   116 

Dr.  Morris  was  born  in  Abbeville,  S.  C;  graduated  at  Erskine 
College,  and  at  Columbia  Theological  Seminary;  was  licensed 
and  ordained  by  South  Carolina  Presbytery;  was  pastor  of 


CONTENTS. 


IX 


the  church  at  Walhalla,  S.  C,  for  six  years,  evangelist  of 
South  Carolina  Presbytery  in  Edgefield  for  seven  years,  and 
pastor  of  Tattnall  Square  church,  in  Macon,  Ga.,  for  twelve 
years;  visited  the  Orient  in  1895;  became  Synodical  Evangelist 
for  the  Synod  of  Georgia  in  1900;  became  Secretary  of  the 
General  Assembly's  Committee  of  Home  Missions  in  1901, 
which  position  he  still  holds.  He  was  offered,  but  declined,  the 
Presidency  of  Columbia  Theological  Seminary  in  1906.  He 
was  a  member  of  the  committee  which  prepared  the  Hymn 
Book  for  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church;  is  the  author  of 
the  Home  Mission  text-book,  "At  Our  Own  Door";  and  is  the 
editor  of  "The  Home  Mission  Herald." 

An  Appreciative  Estimate,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Neander  M. 


Dr.  Woods  was  born  at  Harrodsburg,  Ky.,  Sept.  4,  1844;  attended 
the  University  of  Kentucky  in  1859  and  1860;  entered  the 
Confederate  Army  in  1861,  and  served  with  the  Cavalry  until 
1865;  married  Miss  Alice  Birkhead  in  1866;  graduated  at  the 
University  of  Michigan  in  1867;  studied  law  at  Washington 
University,  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  and  theology  at  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  Va.;  was  ordained  in  1873;  was  pastor  of  the  Second 
church  at  Norfolk,  Va.,  from  1873  to  1880;  of  the  church  in 
Galveston,  Texas,  in  1881;  of  the  Second  church  in  Charlotte, 
N.  C,  from  1881  to  1886;  married  Miss  Sallie  H.  Behre  in 
1885;  was  pastor  of  the  First  church  in  Columbia,  S.  C,  from 
1886  to  1889;  of  the  Second  church  in  Memphis,  Tenn.,  from 
1889  to  1902;  of  the  Second  church  in  Louisville,  Ky.,  from 
1902  to  1905;  Chancellor  of  the  Southwestern  Presbyterian 
University  from  1905  to  1908;  pastor  of  the  Central  church 
in  Montgomery,  Ala.,  from  1908  to  the  present  time. 


Dr.  Neel  was  born  in  Fayette  County,  Tenn.,  Nov.  13,  1841 ;  attended 
the  Synodical  College  at  La  Grange,  Tenn.;  entered  the  Con- 
federate Army  at  the  beginning  of  the  War,  and  served  until 
the  end.  He  was  in  many  battles,  but  was  wounded  only  once. 
He  was  captured  at  the  battle  of  Kennesaw  Mountain,  near 
Marietta,  Ga.,  and  was  confined  in  "Camp  Douglass",  Chicago, 
111.,  for  eight  or  nine  months.  While  a  prisoner,  a  copy  of 
Blackstone's  Commentaries  was  smuggled  in  to  him,  which  he 
read  clandestinely,  a  fellow-prisoner,  who  was  a  lawyer,  aiding 
him  in  his  studies.  When  released  from  prison  at  the  end  of 
the  war  he  studied  law  and  practised  it  for  a  few  years.  But 
the  conviction  that  he  should  preach  grew  upon  him,  and  the 
sudden  death  of  his  wife  was  the  occasion  of  his  yielding  to 
that  conviction.    He  entered  Columbia  Theological  Seminary 


Woods 


120 


A  Retrospect,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  S.  M.  Neel 


123 


X 


CONTENTS. 


in  1868,  studied  there  two  years,  at  Edinburgh  eight  months, 
and  at  Tiibigen  for  three  months.  In  1871  he  married  Miss 
Anna  Maria  Adger,  daughter  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  J.  B.  Adger. 
Soon  afterwards  he  became  pastor  of  the  church  at  Oxford, 
Miss.;  in  1875  he  was  called  to  the  First  church  in  Shelbyville, 
Ky.;  and  in  1888  to  the  Central  church  of  Kansas  City,  Mo., 
of  which  church  he  is  still  the  pastor.  He  has  been  a  Com- 
missioner to  the  General  Assembly  nine  times,  and  was  elected 
Moderator  of  that  body  in  1904. 

The  Testimony  of  a  Son-in-Law,  by  the  Rev.  Melton  Clark  126 

Mr.  Clark  was  born  in  Columbia,  S.  C,  April  19,  1874;  graduated 
at  South  Carolina  College  in  1895,  and  at  Columbia  Theological 
Seminary  in  1898;  married  Miss  Mary  Charlotte  Woodrow, 
youngest  daughter  of  Dr.  Woodrow,  in  1896;  became  pastor 
of  the  church  at  Florence,  S.  C,  in  1898,  and  of  the  First 
church  in  Greensboro,  N.  C,  in  1906,  which  church  he  still 
serves. 

A  Student's  Tribute,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  J.  T.  Plunket   130 

Dr.  Plunkett  was  born  at  Franklin,  Tenn.;  graduated  at  the  South- 
western Presbyterian  University,  the  University  of  Nashville, 
and  Columbia  Theological  Seminary;  was  pastor  of  Steele 
Creek  church,  Mecklenburg  Presbytery,  N.  C;  Madison 
Ave.  church,  Covington,  Ky.;  Jefferson  Ave.  church,  Detroit, 
Mich.;  First  church  in  Augusta,  Ga.,  and  is  now  pastor  of 
Highland  church,  in  Birmingham,  Ala.  He  received  the 
honorary  degree  of  Doctor  of  Divinity  from  Central  Univer- 
sity, Richmond,  Ky.,  and  of  Doctor  of  Medicine  from  the 
Medical  Department  of  the  University  of  Georgia.  He  has 
been  Commissioner  to  the  General  Assembly  four  times,  and  to 
the  Pan-Presbyterian  Council  twice.  He  was  Moderator  of  the 
General  Assembly  in  1905. 

A  Few  Impressions,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  W.  J.  McKay   131 

Dr.  McKay  was  born  in  Harnett  County,  N.  C,  in  1848 ;  graduated 
at  Davidson  College  in  1870,  and  at  Columbia  Theological 
Seminary  in  1873;  became  pastor  of  Salem  (Black  River) 
church  in  Sumter  County,  S.  C,  in  1873;  has  been  for  more 
than  twenty  years  President  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of 
Davidson  College,  and  is  now  Vice-President  of  the  Board 
of  Directors  of  Columbia  Theological  Seminary.  The  degree 
of  D.  D.  was  conferred  on  him  by  the  University  of  North 
Carolina.  He  married  Miss  Sarah  Knox  Witherspoon,  of 
Sumter  Co.,  S.  C. 


CONTEXTS.  XI 

The  Opinion  of  a  Friendly  Acquaintance,  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 

Alexander  Sprunt   132 

Dr.  Sprunt  was  born  in  Glasgow,  Scotland,  of  Scotch  parentage; 


was  reared  in  Wilmington,  N.  C;  graduated  at  Davidson 
College,  N.  C,  and  at  Union  Theological  Seminary,  Va.;  has 
been  pastor  of  churches  in  Virginia  and  North  Carolina,  the 
church  at  Rock  Hill,  S.  C,  and  is  now  pastor  of  the  First 
church  in  Charleston,  S.  C.  He  has  been  offered  the  Presi- 
dency of  two  Colleges  and  has  declined  the  calls  of  many 
churches.  During  the  whole  of  his  ministerial  life  he  has  done 
a  great  deal  of  the  administrative  and  executive  work  of 
Presbytery  and  Synod. 

A  Woman's  Impressions,  by  Miss  I.  D.  Martin   134 

Miss  Martin  was  born  in  Columbia,  S.  C.  Her  father,  the  Rev. 
William  Martin,  was  a  pioneer  Methodist  preacher,  and  his 
daughter  is  very  proud  of  the  fact  that  he  gave  some  of  the 
best  years  of  his  life  as  a  missionary  to  the  slaves.  Her 
mother  was  one  of  the  earliest  inhabitants  of  Columbia,  her 
parents  having  come  here  from  Scotland  early  in  the  last 
century.  She  was  a  writer  of  some  note  in  her  day.  Miss 
Martin  has  spent  most  of  her  own  life  in  teaching,  having  been 
at  the  head  of  one  of  the  most  flourishing  schools  in  Columbia 
for  some  years,  later  occupying  the  chair  of  Mental  and  Moral 
Science  in  Columbia  College,  S.  C. 

Resolutions  adopted  by  the  Faculty  of  South  Carolina 


College   136 

Resolutions  adopted  by  the  Alumni  Association  of  South 

Carolina  College   138 

A  Colleague's  Tribute,  by  Dr.  E.  S.  Joynes   140 


Dr.  Joynes  was  born  in  Accomack  County,  Va.,  in  1834;  graduated 
at  the  University  of  Virginia  in  1853;  received  the  honorary 
degree  of  LL.  D.,  from  Delaware  College  in  1875,  and  from 
William  and  Mary  College  in  1878;  married  Miss  Eliza  W. 
Vest,  of  Williamsburg,  Va.,  in  1859;  was  successively  from 
1859  to  1908  professor  of  languages  at  William  and  Mary 
College,  Va.,  Washington  and  Lee  University,  Va.,  Vanderbilt 
University,  Term.,  University  of  Tennessee,  and  South  Carolina 
College;  is  the  author  and  editor  of  the  Joynes-Meisner  German 
Grammar,  Minimum  French  Grammar,  and  other  text-books 
in  French  and  German. 


XII 


CONTENTS. 


Some  Personal  Impressions  and  Recollections,  by  Mr.  J.  J. 

McSwain   144 

Mr.  McSwain  was  born  at  Cross  Hill,  S.  C,  in  1875;  was  prepared 
for  college  at  his  home  school  and  at  the  Wofford  College 
Fitting  School;  entered  South  Carolina  College  in  1893,  having 
won  a  scholarship  offered  by  the  Laurens  County  alumni  of 
the  College.  This  scholarship  he  used  only  two  years,  however, 
thereafter  earning  part  of  the  money  he  needed,  and  borrowing 
the  rest.  He  graduated  in  1897;  taught  school  for  four  years; 
began  the  practice  of  law  in  1901,  and  is  now  a  prominent 
lawyer  of  Greenville,  S.  C;  in  1905  he  married  Miss  Sarah 
McCullough,  of  Greenville. 

Dr.  Woodrow  and  Sidney  Lanier.  An  Article  appearing 
in  The  State  of  Jan.  18,  1907,  written  by  Dr.  George 
Armstrong  Wauchope,  Professor  of  English  in  South 
Carolina  College   156 

A  Student's  Impressions,  by  Prof.  A.  C.  Moore   159 

Dr.  Moore  was  born  in  Spartanburg  County,  S.  C,  in  1866;  grad- 
uated at  South  Carolina  College  in  1887 ;  taught  for  a  year 
in  Spartanburg,  S.  C;  was  superintendent  of  schools  in 
Camden,  S.  C,  from  1888  to  1890,  and  principal  of  the  High 
School  of  Birmingham,  Ala.,  from  1890  to  1898;  studied  at 
the  University  of  Chicago  from  1898  to  1900.  He  was  elected 
assistant  professor  of  Botany  in  the  University  of  Chicago  in 
1900,  and  the  same  year  was  offered  the  chair  of  Biology, 
Geology,  and  Mineralogy  in  South  Carolina  College.  He 
accepted  the  latter  position,  and  now  occupies  the  chair  of 
Biology  in  South  Carolina  College.  He  married  Miss  Vivian 
May,  of  Alabama,  in  1900.  He  was  Acting  President  of  South 
Carolina  College  in  1908-1909. 

A  Newspaper  Man's  Retrospect,  by  Mr.  August  Kohn ....  168 
Mr.  Kohn  was  born  in  Orangeburg,  S.  C;  graduated  at  South 
Carolina  College  in  1889;  for  many  years  has  had  charge  of 
the  News  and  Courier  Bureau  in  Columbia;  is,  and  has  long 
been,  one  of  the  most  prominent  newspaper  men  of  South 
Carolina. 

The  Opinion  of  a  Scientist,  by  Dr.  D.  S.  Martin   166 

Dr.  Martin  was  born  in  New  York  City,  June  30,  1842;  received 
the  degree  of  A.  B.  in  1863,  that  of  A.  M.  in  1866,  and  the 
honorary  degree  of  Ph.  D.  in  1878,  all  from  New  York  Univer- 
sity; was  professor  of  Geology  in  Rutgers  Female  College, 
New  York  City,  from  1868  to  1895;  lecturer  on  Geology  in  the 


CONTENTS. 


XIII 


College  for  Women,  Columbia,  S.  C,  from  1898  to  1903;  and 
holds  a  similar  position  now  at  Chicora  College,  Greenville, 
S.  C.  He  has  done  and  is  still  doing  a  great  deal  of  work  in 
many  museums,  among  others  in  those  at  South  Carolina 
College  and  in  Charleston,  S.  C.  He  has  always  been  especially 
interested  in  the  relations  of  scientific  and  religious  thought, 
as  was  his  father,  Prof.  B.  N.  Martin,  of  New  York  Univer- 
sity (1852  to  1883)  before  him;  and  he  has  written  much  on 
the  subject.  He  is  a  Fellow  in  many  prominent  scientific 
associations. 

Dr.  Woodrow  as  a  Business  Man,  by  Mr.  W.  A.  Clark.  .  .  .  170 

Mr.  Clark  was  born  on  James  Island,  S.  C,  Feb.  22,  1842;  was  pre- 
pared for  college  at  Mt.  Zion  Institute  at  Winnsboro,  S.  C; 
entered  the  Sophomore  Class  at  South  Carolina  College  in 
1860;  entered  the  Confederate  Army  in  1861,  and  served  to  the 
end  of  the  war;  from  1866  to  1871  he  engaged  in  Sea  Island 
cotton  planting  on  James  Island.  In  1866  he  married  Miss 
Esther  Virginia  Melton,  the  daughter  of  Major  C.  D.  Melton; 
moved  to  Columbia  in  1871,  studied  law  and  became  a  member 
of  the  firm  of  Melton  and  Clark;  in  1904  he  formed  a  law 
partnership  with  his  son,  Mr.  Washington  Clark,  under  the 
firm  name  of  Clark  &  Clark.  In  1881  he  was  elected  President 
of  the  Carolina  National  Bank  of  Columbia,  which  position 
he  still  holds. 

The  Testimony  of  a  Business  Associate,  by  Mr.  R.  W. 

Shand   180 

Mr.  Shand  was  born  in  Columbia,  S.  C,  in  1840;  graduated  at  the 
South  Carolina  College  in  1859;  entered  the  Confederate  Army 
at  the  beginning  of  the  War  Between  the  States,  and  served  to 
the  end;  began  the  practice  of  law  in  1866,  practising  until 
1883  in  Union,  S.  C,  since  which  time  he  has  been  a  prominent 
member  of  the  bar  in  Columbia.  He  was  Reporter  of  the 
State  Supreme  Court  from  1879  to  1895. 

Woodrow  Memorial  Church   181 

Mrs.  Woodrow's  Memorial  Gift  to  the  Young  Men's 

Christian  Association  of  Columbia   191 

An  Appreciation,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Thornton  Whaling.  ...  195 


XIV 


CONTENTS. 


Part  II.— His  Teachings. 


I.  Sermons  201-  364 

John  1 :36.    And  looking  upon  Jesus  as  he  walked,  he 

saith,  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God !   201 

Acts  4:12.  Neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other,  for 
there  is  none  other  name  under  heaven  given  among 
men,  whereby  we  must  be  saved   211 

Mark  8  :36,  37.  For  what  shall  it  profit  a  man,  if  he  shall 
gain  the  whole  world  and  lose  his  own  soul  ?  Or  what 
shall  a  man  give  in  exchange  for  his  soul  ?   220 

Romans  6:23.    (First  clause).    For  the  wages  of  sin  is 

death   230 

Romans  6:23.  (Latter  clause).  The  gift  of  God  is  eter- 
nal life  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord   243 

These  live  sermons  are  among  those  Dr.  Woodrow  preached  to  the 
four  churches  he  served  during  the  years  1858-60,  while  he 
was  Professor  in  Oglethorpe  University  at  Milledgeville,  Ga. 
These  churches  were  at  Eatonton,  Madison,  Irwinton,  and 
Perry,  in  the  Presbytery  of  Hopewell,  afterwards  Augusta 
Presbytery.  As  Dr.  Woodrow  says,  to  serve  these  churches 
"required  forty-four  to  one  hundred  and  seventy  miles'  travel 
each  week,  a  large  part  of  it  by  private  conveyance.  But  by 
travelling  at  night,  I  did  it  without  neglecting  any  duty." 

The  Presbyterian  Doctrine  of  the  Bible   252 

This  address  was  delivered  before  the  Presbytery  of  Augusta  August 
14,  1886,  during  the  Centennial  Celebration  at  Bethany  church, 
Greene  Co.,  Ga.  It  was  during  this  meeting  of  Augusta  Pres- 
bytery that  Dr.  Woodrow  was  tried  for  heresy,  and  tri- 
umphantly acquitted. 
He  repeated  this  sermon  several  times  by  request,  among  others, 
before  the  Bible  Society  of  Charleston,  S.  C,  and  the  students 
of  the  Normal  and  Industrial  College  at  Columbus,  Miss.  The 
form  in  which  he  gave  it  on  these  occasions  will  be  seen  by 
reading  the  sermon,  The  Word  of  God,  p.  300. 

John  17:17.    Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth;  thy  word 

is  truth   276 

This  sermon  was  preached  during  the  meeting  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly at  Chattanooga,  Tenn.,  in  May,  1889. 


CONTENTS. 


XV 


Ps.  119  :9.    Wherewithal  shall  a  young  man  cleanse  his 

way  ?    By  taking  heed  thereto  according  to  thy  word .  289 

Baccalaureate  Sermon  preached  in  the  chapel  of  the  South  Carolina 
College,  June  27,  1892,  during  his  Presidency. 

The  Word  of  God   300 

Baccalaureate  Sermon  preached  in  the  chapel  of  the  South  Carolina 
College,  June  27,  1897,  at  the  close  of  his  Presidency. 

Josh.  13:1.    (Latter  clause).    There  remaineth  yet  very 

much  land  to  be  possessed   314 

This  sermon  was  preached  before  the  Presbytery  of  Augusta  during 
the  War  between  the  States. 

Eph.  4:5.    One  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism   328 

This  sermon  was  preached  by  Dr.  Woodrow  as  Moderator  before  the 
Synod  of  South  Carolina,  at  Columbia,  Oct.  21,  1902. 

The  Work  of  the  Church   352 

This  sermon  was  preached  by  Dr.  Woodrow  as  Moderator  before 
the  Synod  of  South  Carolina,  at  Cheraw,  Oct.,  1903. 

Dr.  Woodrow  was  elected  Moderator  of  Synod  at  the  meeting  in 
Charleston,  Oct.,  1901,  and  held  the  office  until  his  successor, 


the  Rev.  Dr.  D.  N.  McLauchlin,  was  elected  at  the  meeting 
held  in  Columbia  in  1902.  Dr.  McLauchlin  having  removed 
beyond  the  bounds  of  the  Synod  during  the  following  summer, 
Dr.  Woodrow  again  became  Moderator,  and  acted  as  such  at 
the  meeting  in  Cheraw  until  the  election  of  his  successor,  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Robert  Adams.  Dr.  Woodrow  thus  had  the  rather 
unusual  distinction  of  presiding  as  Moderator  at  three  con- 
secutive meetings  of  Synod. 

II.  Inaugural  Address    365 

This  address  was  delivered  at  Marietta,  Ga.,  Nov.  22,  1861,  before 
the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Theological  Seminary  by  Dr. 
Woodrow  at  his  Inauguration  as  Perkins  Professor  of  Natural 
Science  in  Connexion  with  Revelation. 

III.  Review  Articles  • .  388-  507 

Geology  and  its  Assailants   388 

This  article  appeared  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Review  for 
April,  1863. 


XVI 


CONTENTS. 


An  Examination  of  Certain  Recent  Assaults  on  Physical 

Science   407 

This  article,  which  appeared  in  the  Review  for  July,  1873,  was  in 
answer  to  assaults  on  Natural  Science  made  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 
R.  L.  Dabney,  Professor  in  Union  Theological  Seminary,  Va. 

A  Further  Examination  of  Certain  Recent  Assaults  on 

Physical  Science   460 

This  article,  which  appeared  in  the  Review  for  April,  1874,  was  in 
answer  to  Dr.  Dabney's  answer  to  the  preceding  article. 

IV.  Defence  before  the  General  Assembly  at  Huntsville, 

Ala.,  May,  1871   508 


This  speech  was  in  answer  to  charges  against  him  of  dishonesty  and 
malfeasance  in  office  while  he  was  Treasurer  of  Sustentation 
and  Foreign  Missions.  In  order  to  a  full  understanding  of  the 
circumstances,  a  large  part  of  the  proceedings  of  the  General 


Assembly  on  that  subject  is  included. 

V.  Editorials  on  various  Subjects.  555-  579 

Anti-Instrumental  Music  Convention   555 

Congregational  Singing  and  Music  Reform   556 

The  South  Carolina  Baptist  Convention   557 

Punishment  or  Chastisement   559 

A  Merry  Christmas   560 

What  Shall  we  get  for  our  Children   561 

Criminal  Sentimentalism   561 

A  Dark  Future   562 

Rev.  Charles  H.  Spurgeon   .  564 

The  late  Professor  Gray   565 

Is  it  Proper?   565 

The  Best  Way   566 

Prayer  for  the  General  Assembly   568 

The  Tariff  on  Ministers   568 

The  Barnwell  Lynching   573 

The  Salvation  of  All  the  Infant  Dead.  .   573 

Voluntary  Associations    574 

Our  Foreign  Missionary  Work   577 

VI.  Editorials  on  Organic  Union  580-  616 

Some  Results  of  Union   580 

Dr.  Palmer's  Open  Letter   582 

The  Race  Instinct  in  Ohio  and  Kansas   586 


CONTENTS.  XVII 

The  Negro  at  the  South   587 

Northern  Ideas  about  Organic  Union   590 

The  Overture  on  Organic  Union   592 

The  Committee  of  Inquiry   593 

Are  We  Agreed?   595 

Politics  and  Religion   601 

Organic  Union   603 

Co-operation  ;  not  Union   605 

"What  about  the  Northern  Negro?"   607 

Co-operation   610 

"The  Practical  Difference"   613 

VII.  Evolution  617-  973 

Address  on  Evolution   617 


An  address  delivered  May  7,  1884,  before  the  Alumni  Association 
of  the  Columbia  Theological  Seminary.  This  address  was 
made  the  occasion,  though  it  was  hardly  the  cause,  of  a  war 
on  Dr.  Woodrow  which  lasted  for  twenty-five  years. 

This  book  is  published  solely  for  the  purpose  of  honoring  Dr. 
Woodrow's  memory,  and  in  the  hope  that  though  he  is  no 
longer  with  us  in  the  body,  he  may  yet  continue  the  work  he 
so  loved  when  on  earth,  that  of  teaching  God's  truth.  There- 
fore his  speeches  and  editorials  alone  are  included,  the  action 
of  the  church  courts  being  given  only  when  deemed  necessary 


to  a  clear  understanding  of  his  remarks. 

Editorials  646-  720 

The  General  Assembly  and  the  Perkins  Pro- 
fessor   646 

Honorable  Correction   650 

Discussion  of  Evolution   651 

Evolution   653 

The  Bible  and  Natural  Science   653 

What  does  the  Bible  teach?   655 

How  far  is  Evolution  true?   660 

How  far  is  Evolution  to  be  believed?   664 

Objections  Answered    669 

The  Only  Question  at  Issue   679 

Objections  Answered   '.   679 

Objections  Answered    691 

The  Central  Presbyterian   697 

Objections  Answered   698 


CONTENTS. 


Inaugural  Address  . . . .   708 

The  Evolution  Discussion  .    708 

Uselessness  of  Further  Discussion   712 

Speech  before  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina   721 

Editorials  785-  912 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Kellogg  on  Evolution   785 

Who  are  Evolutionists?   788 

The  Christian  Index   791 

Evolution.  (Critical  review  of  Dr.  G.  D.  Arm- 
strong's pamphlet.)   793 

Good  Advice   799 

An  Apology   801 

Commendable  Progress   803 

As  to  Articles  in  the  Review . . . .   804 

The  Central  Presbyterian   805 

Questions  Answered   806 

Desire  to  Close  Discussion   809 

Is  it  Untrue?   810 

Does  the  Bible  Teach  Natural  Science?   811 

A  Fair  and  Truthful  Statement   817 

Drs.  Hodge  and  Patton  and  Evolution   818 

The  Rev.  Drs.  A.  A.  Hodge  and  F.  L.  Patton  on 

Evolution    823 

Drs.  Hodge  and  Patton  on  Evolution  and  the 

Scriptures   828 

Sir  Wm.  Dawson  on  the  Relations  of  Evolution 

to  the  Bible   832 

Change  in  Biblical  Interpretation   835 

The  Origin  of  Adam's  Body.    (Letter  to  the 

News  and  Courier.)   837 

Condemned  and  Sentenced  May  29 ;  to  be  Tried 
Aug.  15.  Action  of  Augusta  General  As- 
sembly   839 

Not  Guilty.    (Verdict  of  Augusta  Presbytery)  . .  840 

To  What  do  we  Object?   840 

Evolution    843 

From  the  Dust   845 

Comments   848 


CONTENTS. 


XIX 


"Good  Logical  Inferences."   853 

Presbyterians  and  Evolution   855 

"Within  the  Space  of  Six  Days"   858 

A  Simple  Plain  Statement  of  how  I  have  Under- 
stood Dr.  Woodrow   861 

Why  Are  They  not  Forthcoming?   864 

Letter  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wm.  Adams   865 

Letter   from   Rev.   Dr.   Adams.  "Recognised 

Geologists"   872 

Dr.  Adams's  "Recognised  Geologists".   878 

The  Earnest  Worker  on  Evolution.    (Review  of 

Dr.  Armstrong's  book,  etc.)   887 

Intentional  Misrepresentation   899 

The  Rev.  T.  H.  Law  and  the  Mecklenburg 

Society    901 

Is  Religious  Controversy  a  Foe  to  Piety?   904 

A  Fearful  Responsibility   906 

A  Mistake  Corrected    908 

Evolution:  What  it  is  not,  and  What  it  is   910 

Argument  before  the  General  Assembly  at  Baltimore, 

in  May,  1888   913 

Closing  Argument — Reply  to  Dr.  Adams   956 

The  Presbytery  of  Augusta,  Oct.,  1888   971 


PART  I. 
Character  Sketches. 


1— TV 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Account  Appearing'  in  "Who's  Who  in  America" 
for  1906-1907. 


James  Woodrow,  educator;  born  in  Carlisle,  Eng.,  May  30, 
1828 ;  son  of  Rev.  Dr.  Thomas  and  Marion  Williamson  Wood- 
row  ;  graduated  at  Jefferson  College,  Pa.,  1849 ;  studied  in 
Lawrence  Scientific  School,  Harvard,  in  summer  of  1853 ; 
University  of  Heidelberg,  A.  M.,  Ph.  D.,  summa  cum  laude, 
1856;  (hon.  M.  D.,  Georgia  Medical  College;  D.  D.,  Hampden- 
Sidney  College;  LL.D.,  Davidson  College;  J.  U.  D.,  Washing- 
ton and  Jefferson  College)  ;  married  Aug.  4,  1857,  Felie  S.. 
daughter  of  Rev.  J.  W.  Baker,  of  Georgia.  Presbyterian 
clergyman ;  principal  of  academies  in  Alabama,  1850-1853 ; 
professor  of  Natural  Science,  Oglethorpe  University,  Ga., 
1853  to  1861 ;  in  medical  department  (chief  of  laboratory  at 
Columbia,  S.  C),  Confederate  States  Army,  1863  to  1865; 
professor,  1869  to  1872,  1880  to  1897,  president,  1891  to  1897, 
South  Carolina  College ;  professor  Columbia  Theological  Semi- 
nary, 1861  to  1886,  deposed  on  account  of  views  concerning 
evolution,  in  pamphlet:  Evolution,  1884.  Treasurer  Southern 
General  Assembly's  Foreign  Missions  and  Sustentation,  1861 
to  1872.  Corresponding  delegate  to  the  Churches  in  Great 
Britain  and  on  the  Continent  of  Europe,  1874.  Commissioner 
to  Southern  General  Assembly,  1866,  77,  79,  80,  86,  89,  96,  99. 
Moderator  Synod  of  Georgia,  1879,  Synod  of  South  Carolina, 
1901.  President  Central  National  Bank,  1888  to  1891.  1897 
to  1901.  Editor  and  proprietor  Southern  Presbyterian  Review 
(quarterly),  1861  to  1885,  Southern  Presbyterian,  (weekly), 
1865  to  1893.  Associate  of  Victoria  Institute,  London;  Isis, 
Dresden,  Saxony ;  Scientific  Association  of  Germany ;  Scientific 
Association  of  Switzerland;  fellow  of  American  Association 
for  the  Advancement  of  Science;  of  the  International  Congress 
of  Geologists. 


4 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


SKetch  Published  in  The  State,  of  Columbia,  and 
The  News  and  Courier,  of  Charleston, 
January  18,  1907. 


WRITTEN  BY  THE  REV.  DR.  J.  WM.  EUNN. 

"Who  reverenced  his  conscience  as  his  king; 
And  we  see  him  as  he  moved, 
How  modest,  kindly,  all-accomplished,  wise, 
With  that  sublime  repression  of  himself, 
And  in  what  limits,  and  how  tenderly, 
*  *  *  Through  all  his  tract  of  years, 
Wearing  the  white  flower  of  a  blameless  life." 

"He  had  done  his  work,  and  held  his  peace,  and  had  no  fear  to  die." 

He  who  serves  well  his  country  and  his  Church  needs  not 
ancestral  fame  to  give  lustre  to  his  name.  Virtue  and  achieve- 
ment, not  birth,  make  man  noble.  Yet  high  worth  in  one  whose 
pedigree  is  a  long  line  of  honorable  forefathers  gratifies  the 
moral  sense,  as  a  rich  jewel  in  a  fine  setting  pleases  the  aesthetic 
taste.  An  unbroken  succession  of  noble  sires  and  sons  suggests 
the  immortality  of  virtue,  and  inspires  us  to  achieve  in  our  own 
lives  excellence  that  may  be  perpetuated  in  our  posterity.  We 
are  the  children  of  eternity.  We  project  our  hopes  and  efforts 
into  an  endless  future,  and  feel  that  the  moral  order  of  the 
world  corresponds  with  our  natural  longings  for  endless  life 
when  we  see  the  repetition  and  continuous  duration  of  the  best 
in  human  character  and  works.  We  feel  reverent  before  an 
ancient  castle  that  has  stood  unmarred  and  unbroken  against 
decay  and  storm.  "How  much  more  when  we  behold  an 
ancient  family  that  has  stood  unstained  and  unbroken  against 
the  waves  and  weathers  of  time."  The  continuity  of  the 
manly  virtues  and  the  womanly  graces  of  our  old-country- 
across-the-sea  ancestors  constitutes  the  strength  and  the  orna- 
ment of  our  land  and  people. 

Dr.  Woodrow's  distinguished  life  and  character  are  the 
proper  fruitage  in  America  of  a  tree  transplanted  from  Great 
Britain,  from  an  ancient  stock  in  a  rich  soil  long  prolific  in  good 
men  and  good  women. 

From  Dr.  Robert  Wodrow's  biography  of  his  father,  James 
Wodrow,  the  following  data  in  the  family  history  are  gathered. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


5 


About  seven  hundred  years  ago,  not  far  from  the  year  1300, 
the  Wodrow  ancestors  of  the  family  came  from  England  to 
Scotland.  "They  owned  the  Hill  of  Eglishame  (Eaglesham) 
or  other  lands,  without  interruption  for  more  than  three  hun- 
dred years  before  Prof.  James  Wodrow's  birth  in  1637." 
Eaglesham  is  a  village  and  parish  about  seven  miles  from 
Glasgow.  "It  has  beautiful  scenery  and  moors  abounding  in 
game,  and  the  remains  of  a  castle,  built  by  Sir  John  Mont- 
gomery with  the  ransom  money  of  Harry  Hot  Spur,  whom  he 
took  prisoner  at  the  battle  of  Otterburn." 

Like  the  family  of  Aaron,  in  which  the  priesthood  was  hered- 
itary, one  or  more  of  the  Wodrows,  in  many  generations  for 
centuries,  has  been  an  honored  Christian  minister.  Before  the 
Reformation,  Patrick  Wodrow,  a  Roman  Catholic  priest,  was 
converted  to  the  Protestant  form  of  faith,  and  was  vicar  of  the 
parish  of  Eaglesham.  His  wife  was  Agnes  Hamilton,  daugh- 
ter ito  a  brother  of  the  house  of  Abercorn.  Their  names  are 
graven  on  their  tombstones  in  the  churchyard  at  Eaglesham. 

Patrick's  son,  John,  left  several  sons,  the  youngest  of  whom 
was  Robert  Wodrow,  an  able  lawyer,  born  about  1600.  He 
married  Agnes  Dunlop,  daughter  of  John  Dunlop  of  Polnoon 
Milne  in  Eaglesham,  and  granddaughter  to  the  Earl  of  Dunlop, 
an  old  family  of  Ayrshire. 

Robert  Wodrow's  fourth  son,  James,  (born  1637),  was  the 
distinguished  professor  of  theology  in  the  University  of  Glas- 
gow from  1692  until  his  death  in  1707.  His  biography  presents 
many  features  of  life  and  character  strikingly  similar  to  those 
of  his  illustrious  descendant  and  namesake,  who  has  just  gone 
to  his  reward. 

He  lived  in  a  momentous  period  in  the  Church  of  Scotland's 
history.  From  1637,  his  birth  year,  to  1687  were  days  of  trial 
for  the  Scottish  Presbyterians — days  of  fire  and  blood  that 
tested  the  mettle  of  men's  souls.  He  was  born  the  year  before 
the  "Solemn  League  and  Covenant"  was  adopted  by  the  Scot- 
tish parliament.  His  contemporaries  and  friends  were  cove- 
nanters, martyrs,  members  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  and 
heroes  of  Bothwell  Bridge. 

"God  made  him  eminent  in  upbuilding  his  Church  in  Scot- 
land in  a  momentous  age.    He  trained  more  than  six  hundred 


6 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


young  men  for  the  ministry.  He  had  the  principal  part  in 
formulating  and  in  leading  the  Church  of  Scotland  to  adopt 
the  polity  and  discipline." 

So  Dr.  James  Woodrow  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  from  1828  to  1907  lived  in  a  critical  period  in  the 
history  of  his  Church.  This  period  embraced  the  controversy 
and  division  of  the  Old  and  New  School  branches ;  the  debates 
concerning  slavery ;  the  separation  of  the  Church  into  Northern 
and  Southern  Presbyterians,  incident  to  the  States  Rights  war ; 
the  revision  of  the  Book  of  Order  and  Discipline;  the  adjust- 
ment of  modern  Christian  thought  on  various  topics  connected 
with  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible  and  of  nature  in  their 
relations  to  the  subjects  of  geology,  the  antiquity  and  unity  of 
the  human  race,  and  the  method  of  creation.  In  these  latter 
affairs,  Dr.  Woodrow  had  a  guiding  and  leading  part ;  and  like 
his  ancestor,  he  trained  several  hundred  young  men  for  the 
ministry. 

The  seventeenth  century  prototype  and  his  nineteenth  cen- 
tury representative  were  giants  in  a  great  age  among  great  men. 
The  spirit  of  the  ancestor  lived  again  in  America,  two  hundred 
years  after  his  well-done  work  was  finished  in  Scotland. 

Prof.  James  Wodrow  of  the  seventeenth  century  was  noted 
for  his  modesty — amounting  to  bashfulness — deep  conscien- 
tiousness, profound  sense  of  awe  and  solemnity  in  facing  the 
duties  of  a  minister  and  teacher ;  tireless  industry  and  diligence 
as  student  and  teacher.  "He  was  seven  years  old  before  he 
would  speak  any  but  a  few  broken  words  about  food  and  drink 
and  such  things.  This  was  due  to  bashfulness  and  not  lack  of 
intellect,  as  his  father  feared.  He  at  last  overcame  it.  The 
first  time  he  spoke,  and  before  he  knew  a  letter,  he  repeated 
the  Short  Catechism,  which  he  had  heard  his  brothers  getting 
and  repeating,  without  missing  one  word  of  it,  which  surprised 
them  all  with  much  pleasure."  Evidently  the  silent  small  boy 
had  been  doing  some  close  listening  and  thinking.  The  truth 
in  the  "Short  Catechism"  had  stirred  his  heart  and  loosed  his 
tongue.  What  memory  power  was  revealed  in  this  outflow  on 
faith  and  duty ! 

He  was  so  bashful,  he  feared  he  could  never  preach.  His 
views  of  the  ministry  were  so  solemn  and  the  difficulties  of  its 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


r 


right  discharge  in  those  persecuting  days  were  so  great  that  it 
required  the  earnest  pleas  of  eminent  ministers  to  induce  him  to 
become  a  candidate. 

These  recitals  of  the  progenitor's  life  recall  to  men  now 
living  incidents  in  the  class-room,  the  church  court,  and  the 
home  which  revealed  strikingly  similar  traits  in  the  Dr.  Wood- 
row  of  our  day — his  manner  quiet  and  reserved ;  an  air  almost 
shy  and  diffident;  the  voice  low  and  gentle;  a  blush  often  on 
the  face  in  the  beginnings  of  his  utterance.  But  as  the  beauti- 
ful drapery  of  a  glowing  cloud — morning's  blush  at  the  sight 
of  her  king — melts  and  vanishes  before  the  rising  sun,  so  with 
the  vision  of  truth  maligned  or  right  assailed,  before  duty  to  be 
done,  wrong  to  be  averted,  and  error  to  be  refuted,  Dr.  Wood- 
row's  reticence  and  shyness  disappeared.  His  speech  flowed 
full  and  free.  From  a  memory  remarkable  for  its  accuracy 
and  fulness,  facts  and  principles  poured  forth,  organised  in 
orderly  logical  phalanx  by  a  commanding  reasoning  power, 
notably  quick  and  strong.  While  never  parading  his  learning, 
yet  like  his  ancestor,  he  kept  his  classics  fresh  in  memory  as 
"organa"  of  learning. 

His  ancestor,  in  the  persecuting  days  in  Scotland,  prior  to 
1687  endured  great  hardships  and  persecution,  often  narrowly 
escaping  imprisonment  and  death,  to  which  he  was  exposed 
because  of  his  loyalty  in  holding  to  the  Reformed  Faith,  and  his 
fidelity  in  preaching  it  to  Scotland's  elect,  hunted  and  scattered 
in  fields,  moors,  woods,  and  mountains.  Twenty-eight  years 
he  spent  in  this  life  of  trial,  training,  and  study.  God  was 
providentially  fitting  him  for  the  nineteen  years  of  his  profes- 
sorship of  theology  in  the  University  of  Glasgow.  During  all 
these  years  he  kept  up  his  study  in  the  classics,  divinity,  church 
history,  and  church  government,  Greek  and  Roman  history,  and 
belles-lettres. 

While  his  descendant  was  not  the  subject  of  physical  perse- 
cution, yet  he  showed  the  same  spirit  of  loyalty  to  what  he  held 
as  truth  under  the  fire  of  criticism,  and  in  the  strenuous  battle 
of  heated  controversy  over  convictions  for  which  he  would 
have  chosen  death  rather  than  surrender  or  retreat.  Like  his 
ancestor,  he  spent  long  years  of  training  for  his  great  life  work, 
mastering  the  natural  sciences.  His  zeal,  energy,  and  thorough- 


8 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


ness  as  a  professor  likewise  inspired  his  students  with  a  "mind 
to  work,"  and  with  the  desire  for  accuracy  and  fulness  of 
knowledge — not  merely  for  its  own  sake,  but  to  increase  the 
power  of  serving  God  and  doing  good  to  men. 

In  1673,  the  great  ancestor,  James,  married  his  first  wife, 
Margaret  Hair,  of  whom  her  son,  Robert,  says:  "She  was  a 
godly,  discreet,  and  virtuous  gentlewoman,  of  a  sweet  and 
comely  countenance,  of  singular  prudence  and  discretion,  and 
noted  for  management  of  a  family."  The  great-grandmother 
of  the  modern  Woodrows  •  and  her  descendants  of  other  names 
came  from  a  long  line  of  noted  progenitors.  Her  father,  Wil- 
liam Hair,  married  Janet  Steuart,  daughter  of  James  Steuart, 
tutor  of  Blackhall,  whose  wife  was  Marion  Maxwell  of 
Stainley,  an  honorable  family  in  Scotland.  James  Steuart's 
forefathers  for  several  generations  bore  the  name,  James,  back 
to  their  ancestor  in  the  fourteenth  century,  Sir  John  Steuart  of 
Ardgowan,  son  of  King  Robert  III — the  Bruce — who  won  the 
victory  of  Bannockburn. 

The  best  thing  in  kings  is  not  blood  or  race,  name  or  place, 
but  the  adornment  of 

"The  king-becoming  graces  *  *  * 
Devotion,  patience,  courage,  fortitude." 

The  best  in  Robert  the  Bruce,  "devotion,  patience,  courage, 
fortitude,"  belonged  to  James  Woodrow  of  Columbia.  The 
portrait  of  James  Wodrow's  wife  in  the  seventeenth  century, 
drawn  by  her  son,  presents  many  features  found  in  the  wife  of 
his  nineteenth  century  son  and  heir.  Those  who  knew  her  in 
the  glow  of  her  youth,  in  the  prime  of  her  womanhood,  and  in 
the  years  of  the  "age  calmed"  face,  would  place  upon  her  head 
a  crown  like  unto  that  Robert  set  upon  his  mother's  brow 
nearly  two  hundred  years  ago. 

Dr.  Woodrow  was  born  in  Carlisle,  England,  May  30,  1828. 
The  original  and  present  form  of  the  name  in  Scotland  is 
Wodrow,  pronounced  Wudrow  or  Woodrow.  When  Dr. 
Woodrow's  father,  the  Rev.  Thomas  Wodrow,  D.  D.,  became 
pastor  at  Carlisle,  the  English  people  sounded  the  o  in  the  first 
syllable  short.  To  retain  the  ancient  and  correct  pronunciation 
of  the  name,  Dr.  Thomas  inserted  an  o  in  the  first  syllable. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


9 


Dr.  Thomas  Wodrow,  born  in  1793  in  Scotland,  was  a  man 
eminent  for  piety,  earnest,  evangelical  spirit  as  a  preacher, 
uprightness  of  life,  and  scholarly  taste. 

In  1836  he  was  sent  as  home  missionary  to  Canada,,  but 
found  the  climate  too  severe.  In  1837,  therefore,  he  removed 
from  Canada  to  Chillicothe,  Ohio,  a  town  settled  by  people 
from  Virginia  in  1796.  He  was  the  fourth  generation  from 
his  ancestor,  James  Wodrow,  and  his  father  was  John  Wodrow, 
an  elder  in  the  church  at  Paisley,  Scotland.  The  wife  of  Dr. 
Thomas  Wodrow  was  Marion  Williamson.  He  died  in  1877. 
Among  his  well  known  descendants  in  this  country  are  Presi- 
rent  Woodrow  Wilson  of  Princeton,  Dr.  George  Howe  of 
North  Carolina  university,  son  and  grandson,  respectively,  of 
Rev.  Dr.  Joseph  R.  Wilson,  former  professor  in  Columbia 
seminary,  whose  wife  was  Dr.  James  Woodrow's  sister. 

James  Woodrow,  with  the  aid  of  his  father,  prepared  himself 
for  college.  He  entered  Jefferson  College,  Pennsylvania,  now 
Washington  and  Jefferson,  where  he  graduated  in  1849  with 
the  degree  of  A.  B.,  with  highest  honors  in  a  class  of  fifty-five 
members.  He  then  came  South,  and  was  principal  of  acade- 
mies in  Alabama  from  1850  to  1853.  The  dominating  principle 
and  passion  of  his  whole  life  made  him  a  power  for  good  in 
those  Alabama  communities,  in  this  apprentice  time  of  his 
teaching  work,  the  passion  for  learning  truth  and  imparting  it 
in  order  to  elevate  men  to  better  living.  He  gathered  knowl- 
edge from  all  classes  of  people.  He  talked  with  physicians, 
ministers,  lawyers,  merchants,  farmers,  and  mechanics.  He 
studied  law.  In  company  with  his  pupils,  he  gathered  nature's 
lore  from  field,  forest,  and  stream.  He  honored  Truth,  and 
his  loyalty  to  her  led  his  pupils  to  honor  her. 

In  the  summer  of  1853,  he  was  a  student  at  the  Lawrence 
Scientific  school  at  Harvard  university,  under  the  renowned 
Louis  Agassiz.  A  great  man  is  the  focal  point  in  which  a  thou- 
sand rays  of  light  converge  and  from  which  they  diverge,  a 
reservoir  of  forces  gathered  and  distributed.  Agassiz  was  of 
French  Huguenot  blood,  born  in  Switzerland.  His  forefathers 
for  six  generations  were  clergymen.  The  greatest  doctors  of 
the  day  were  his  teachers  and  friends.  Many  of  his  pupils 
became  world-famed  savants. 


10 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


The  friendship  formed  between  the  young  teacher  from 
Alabama  and  the  great  naturalist  lasted  through  Agassiz's  life. 
His  influence  on  Dr.  Woodrow  was  profound  and  permanent. 
He  moulded  and  kindled  into  warmer  glow  his  intellectual 
interests  and  sympathies.  His  achievements  were  an  inspira- 
tion to  his  efforts.  His  noble  Christian  character  gave  the 
joy  and  strength  that  a  man  of  high  soul  feels  in  the  presence 
of  a  kindred  spirit,  that  cherishes  the  life  ideals  he  loves. 
Dr.  Woodrow's  students  in  college  and  seminary  caught  from 
him  the  admiration  he  felt  for  his  own  great  teacher.  A  great 
teacher  is  not  the  mere  informer  of  thought,  but  the  maker 
and  builder  of  character  by  the  admiration  he  inspires.  Men 
are  elevated,  not  by  mere  knowledge  poured  into  them,  but  by 
the  homage  kindled  in  them  for  great  things  and  great  char- 
acters. 

In  1856  he  took  the  degree  of  A.  M.  and  Ph.  D.  in  Heidel- 
berg university  "summa  cum  laude,"  that  is,  with  highest  praise 
or  highest  honors.  The  extraordinarily  high  qualities  of  his 
work,  the  fulness  of  his  attainments,  and  the  remarkable  power 
he  displayed  in  completing  in  four  months  what  students 
usually  require  several  semesters  to  accomplish,  revealed  to 
those  learned  German  scholars  the  fact  that  a  very  unusual 
man  was  before  them.  Those  Germans  have  an  eye  for  great 
talents  and  scholarship.  The  universities  keep  sharp  lookout 
for  them  and  maintain  keen  rivalry  in  securing  them  as  the 
lights  and  attractions  for  their  institutions.  Immediately  upon 
Dr.  Woodrow's  graduation  he  was  offered  a  full  professorship 
in  Heidelberg  university.  Germans  are  accused  of  believing 
that  no  good  thing  in  the  way  of  scholarship  or  teaching  can 
come  from  outside  of  Germany;  but  here  they  found  a  man 
they  wanted  to  adopt  and  honor  with  one  of  the  richest  crowns 
that  this  "Land  of  Lore"  could  put  on  a  man's  head.  They 
wanted  to  enthrone  him  in  a  professorial  chair,  to  be  a  ruler 
and  leader  in  the  empire  of  learning,  to  expand  this  empire, 
and  train  scholars  like  himself.  This  young  man,  twenty-eight 
years  old,  a  citizen  of  a  Southern  State,  declined  the  proffered 
crown,  because  he  loved  the  Church  and  the  people  of  the 
sunny  land  of  his  adoption.  Them  would  he  serve  with  his 
rare  gifts  and  high  attainments.    He  went  to  Germany  not 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


11 


for  the  honor  she  might  give  him,  but  to  gain  and  take  back 
to  the  land  of  his  love,  Germany's  treasures  for  her  enrichment. 

An  adopted  son  of  the  South,  a  grandson  of  Scotland !  Ger- 
many's greatest  philosopher  and  teacher,  Immanuel  Kant,  of 
Konigsberg,  was  a  grandson  of  Scotland! 

Dr.  Thos.  C.  Johnson,  in  his  noble  life  of  Dr.  Dabney,  which 
reveals  this  great  man,  whom  we  all  knew  to  be  great,  to  be 
even  greater  than  we  knew  him,  quotes  a  letter  from  Dr. 
Dabney  to  his  wife,  commenting  on  German  conceit  and  depre- 
ciation of  other  nations'  scholarship.  With  characteristic 
vigor,  Dr.  Dabney  says :  "Their  contempt  for  the  scholarship 
of  other  nations  is  absurd  and  most  blamable.  If  they  would 
consider  other  people's  writings  some,  perhaps  they  would  not 
be  so  everlastingly  running  after  new-fangled  crotchets  and 
heresies.  They  are  like  Job's  fools :  'Surely  we  are  the  people ; 
and  wisdom  will  die  with  us.'  "  Describing  a  visit  to  the 
famous  professor  Luthardt,  he  says :  "I  thought  I  would  amuse 
and  please  him  by  telling  him  how  familiar  we  were  with 
German  lexicons,  etc.,  in  Virginia.  He  swallowed  it  all  gravely 
and  said,  'Yah,  Shermany  ist  de  school-mistress  of  de  vorldt !'  " 

In  Dr.  Woodrow  the  "school -mistress"  found  one  man  in  "de 
vorldt"  outside  of  "Shermany,"  competent  to  teach  her  sons! 

In  Germany,  and  while  travelling  and  studying  on  the  conti- 
nent and  in  Great  Britain,  he  made  friendly  acquaintanceship 
with  many  noted  scholars — men  deeply  versed  in  various 
natural  sciences,  in  theology,  philology,  ethnology,  and  phi- 
losophy. Prominent  among  these  were  Virchow,  Quatrefages, 
Tyndall,  Huxley,  Lyell,  and  many  others.  Among  his  German 
professors  and  fellow-students  were  some  who  were  either 
skeptics  or  indifferent  to  Christianity.  These  men  sometimes 
expressed  surprise  at  his  firm  evangelical  faith  in  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  Bible,  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  other  cardinal 
doctrines,  and  also  at  his  regular  fidelity  in  attendance  upon 
Sabbath  worship.  He  was  quick,  bold,  and  clear  in  avowing 
to  them  that  it  was  perfectly  logical  for  believing  students  of 
God's  works  in  nature  and  history  to  be  also  believing  students 
of  God's  word.  A  skeptical  atmosphere  never  chilled  the  ardor 
of  his  faith.  Skeptical  winds,  instead  of  swerving  him  from 
his  course,  made  him,  like  the  eagle,  breast  the  blasts  with 


12 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


bolder  wing  and  move  strongly  on  against  them  and  above 
them. 

In  1853  he  was  made  professor  of  Natural  Science  in  Ogle- 
thorpe university,  Georgia.  He  was  given  leave  of  absence 
without  salary  and  retained  in  this  professorship  during  his 
foreign  sojourn.  After  this  he  taught  continuously  at  Ogle- 
thorpe until  1861.  During  this  period  he  formed  many  friend- 
ships in  the  ministry  and  the  laity  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  Georgia  and  Alabama  that  lasted  in  unabated  warmth 
through  life. 

One  of  his  students  at  Oglethorpe  was  Sidney  Lanier, 
Georgia's  greatest  poet,  and  in  the  opinion  of  many,  "the 
Tennyson  of  the  South,  standing  with  the  first  princes  of 
American  song."  His  influence  on  Lanier  is  typical  of  the 
formative  and  guiding  power  he  exerted  on  the  minds  of  many 
of  his  students.  Professor  Morgan  Callaway,  in  the  introduc- 
tion to  his  "Select  Poems  of  Sidney  Lanier,"  quotes  the  poet's 
declaration  that  to  Dr.  Woodrow  he  owed  "the  strongest  and 
most  valuable  stimulus  of  his  youth."  In  1881  when  Lanier 
was  making  his  last  battle  for  life  in  the  North  Carolina  moun- 
tains, I  met  him  twice,  and  was  with  him  a  few  days  at  the 
Sulphur  Springs  near  Waynesville.  One  day  we  were  talking 
of  the  relations  between  the  scientific  and  the  poetic  view  of 
nature,  one  being  an  interpretation  of  nature  by  thought,  the 
other  a  construction  of  nature  by  imagination,  one  nature 
known  by  the  head,  the  other  nature  felt  by  the  heart.  We 
agreed  heartily  that  the  conception  of  nature  as  "the  art  of 
God"  was  a  conclusion  the  mind  must  logically  reach,  when  it 
goes  beyond  nature's  mere  phenomenal  uniformities  to  the  phil- 
osophical question  as  to  the  ultimate  cause  and  source  of  her 
complex  and  unitary  mechanism.  We  had  spoken  of  Dr. 
Woodrow,  of  his  teachings  as  confirming  and  impressing  this 
faith,  of  our  admiration  and  mutual  indebtedness  for  his  teach- 
ings. He  said:  "I  am  more  indebted  to  Dr.  Woodrow  than 
to  any  living  man  for  shaping  my  mental  attitude  toward 
nature  and  life.  His  spirit  and  method  not  only  guided  and 
enlarged  my  scientific  knowledge,  but  they  had  a  formative 
influence  on  my  thought  and  fancy  in  all  my  literary  work," 
and  more  to  the  same  purport.    It  is  something  worth  living 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


13 


for  to  have  helped  a  Lanier  to  sing  his  songs  and  see  his  visions 
that  will  gladden  and  uplift  many  thousand  souls  for  genera- 
tions to  come. 

While  in  Alabama,  and  at  Oglethorpe,  he  used  offered  oppor- 
tunities to  give  religious  instruction.  He  was  licensed  to 
preach,  and  in  1859  ordained  by  Hopewell  Presbytery.  He 
preached  statedly  to  various  congregations  of  small  churches  in 
the  vicinity,  in  connexion  with  his  college  duties.  This  work 
to  him  was  not  small,  for  it  was  the  Master's. 

In  1857,  August  4,  he  married  Miss  Felie  S.  Baker,  daughter 
of  the  Rev.  J.  W.  Baker,  a  Presbyterian  minister  in  Georgia. 
Their  wedded  life  almost  reached  its  golden  anniversary. 
Through  all  these  years  the  devoted  and  gifted  wife  has  been 
her  husband's  helper  and  sunshine ;  a  tireless  ministering  angel 
in  all  life's  troubles,  and  in  the  last  long  illness.  She  is  left 
behind,  awaiting  the  call  to  join  him  in  the  "house  not  made 
with  hands."  Of  the  children  born  to  them,  the  only  son, 
James,  a  noble  young  man,  died  in  1892.  His  parents  said  of 
him:  "He  never  gave  us  one  heartache."  He  left  a  widow, 
Kate  McMaster  Woodrow,  and  three  children.  Of  their  three 
daughters,  Jeanie  married  the  Rev.  Saml.  I.  Woodbridge,  a 
missionary  in  China;  Lottie  married  the  Rev.  Melton  Clark, 
pastor  of  the  Greensboro,  N.  C,  First  Presbyterian  church. 
They  both  have  several  children.  Marion,  the  unmarried 
daughter,  is  left  bereft  of  the  father  she  loved  next  to  God. 

In  1859  a  new  chair,  unparalleled  then  in  any  institution  on 
the  globe,  was  added  to  Columbia  Theological  Seminary.  Its 
endowment  was  the  munificent  gift  of  a  noble  Mississippian, 
Judge  Perkins,  of  "The  Oaks,"  near  Columbus.  Its  title  and 
specific  purpose  were  the  conception  of  his  pastor,  the  Rev. 
Dr.  J.  A.  Lyon :  "The  Perkins  Professorship  of  Natural  Sci- 
ence in  Connexion  with  Revelation,  the  design  of  which  shall 
be  to  evince  the  harmony  of  science  with  the  records  of  our 
faith,  and  to  refute  the  objections  of  infidel  naturalists."  Drs. 
J.  H.  Thornwell,  Thomas  Smyth,  Jno.  B.  Adger,  and  others 
welcomed  with  delight  this  addition  to  the  Seminary's  course 
of  instruction,  not  sharing  at  all  Dr.  Dabney's  fear  that  it 
would  tend  (towards  "anti-Christian  opinions." 


14: 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


The  Synods  controlling  the  Seminary,  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  and  Alabama,  elected  Dr.  Woodrow  to  this  chair,  and 
he  assumed  its  duties  in  1861.  His  inaugural  address  set  forth 
his  views  of  the  scope  and  purpose  of  the  chair.  He  was 
oppressed  "with  a  sense  of  responsibility  and  self-distrust,"  by 
the  fact  that  he  was  an  absolute  pioneer  in  a  work  that  had  no 
similar  chair  in  any  institution  in  Christendom  to  serve  as  a 
model.  He  held  that  the  work  of  his  chair  would  be  to  show 
that  objections  to  the  Bible  based  on  alleged  natural  science 
were  founded  either  upon  "science  falsely  so-called,,,  or  upon 
misinterpretation  of  the  Bible.  For  nature  is  God's  work  and 
the  Bible  is  his  word,  and  being  a  God  of  Truth  he  cannot  con- 
tradict himself  in  either. 

Summarising  the  principles  of  the  address:  There  are  no 
errors  in  the  Bible,  the  original  text  being  given ;  there  are  no 
errors  in  nature,  the  real  facts  being  given.  The  books  of 
nature  and  of  revelation  are  both  inerrantly  true,  both  being 
rightly  interpreted.  Hence  there  can  be  no  conflict  between 
them — for  truth,  like  its  author,  is  one.  Hence  apparent  con- 
flict arises  from  (1)  false  text,  or  misapprehended  fact,  or  (2) 
false  interpretation  of  either  text  or  fact;  or  (3)  false  infer- 
ence from  some  truth  of  revelation  or  truth  of  nature.  Correct 
these — the  false  text,  or  misapprehended  fact,  the  false  inter- 
pretation or  inference — and  the  apparent  conflict  disappears. 
We  must  not  judge  the  truth  of  nature  or  of  the  Bible  by 
preconceptions  drawn  from  the  supposed  teachings  of  either. 

For  about  twenty-five  years  he  developed  and  impressed 
these  principles  upon  successive  classes  of  students  for  the 
ministry.  He  reviewed  the  conflicts  of  opinion  in  successive 
ages  as  to  the  supposed  teachings  of  the  sciences  on  the  one 
hand  and  of  the  Bible  on  the  other,  on  the  subjects  of  chro- 
nology, death  in  the  animal  world  before  the  fall  of  man, 
geography,  astronomy,  Noah's  flood,  zoology,  geology  and  the 
age  Of  the  earth,  the  antiquity  and  unity  of  the  race,  the  nebular 
hypothesis,  and,  in  the  latter  half  of  this  period,  evolution — or 
the  theory  as  to  the  mode  or  origin  of  the  forms  of  life,  whether 
by  immediate,  instantaneous  creation,  or  mediately  by  generic 
derivation,  or  descent  with  modification.  He  showed  with 
luminous  and  convincing  clearness  that  all  the  apparent  con- 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


15 


flicts  between  the  Bible  and  nature,  and  the  opposition  either  to 
the  Bible  or  to  the  science  concerned,  arose  from  a  violation  of 
the  fundamental  principles  that  should  have  been  applied. 

The  limits  of  this  sketch  forbid  more  than  a  brief  indication 
of  his  great  life  work — his  Seminary  teachings — in  the  form  of 
a  partial  digest  and  interpretation,  based  upon  three  years  of 
student  work  under  him,  his  writings  and  speeches,  upon  the 
testimony  of  students  from  all  his  classes  from  1861  to  1886, 
upon  note  books  (recording  his  lectures)  of  students  from 
several  classes,  and  from  friendly  intercourse  since  1872. 
During  twelve  years  of  this  period  I  was  his  colleague  in  the 
South  Carolina  College. 

His  fundamental  thesis  was:  "The  Bible  and  nature  are 
both  from  God.  They  can  not  be  contradictory.  Apparent 
conflicts  arise  from  misinterpretations  of  one,  or  the  other,  or 
of  both.  Remove  these  conflicts  by  ascertaining  and  interpret- 
ing correctly  the  facts  of  both." 

The  spirit  of  honesty  and  candor  of  mind  to  accept  truth  on 
proper  evidence  must  guide  this  work.  Man  can  not  dictate 
what  nature  should  be,  or  what  the  Bible  must  say.  He  is  a 
learner  of  God's  thoughts  and  ways  in  nature,  and  of  his  will  in 
the  word.  The  methods  of  all  science,  physical  and  spiritual, 
as  science,  are  the  same,  the  application  varying  with  the  sub- 
ject matter.  To  reach  truth  in  the  ascertainment  and  interpre- 
tation of  biblical  and  physical  facts  we  must  follow  honestly 
and  fearlessly  the  logical  methods  of  induction  and  deduction. 
God  gave  us  laws  of  thought  that  underlie  and  permeate  these 
methods,  and  a  universe  of  reality,  spiritual  and  material,  to 
be  known  and  interpreted  by  them.  As  we  are  "made  free 
men  by  the  truth,"  we  must  claim  and  allow  freedom  of 
research. 

To  the  Christian,  when  he  is  learning  from  nature  or  the 
Bible,  he  is  learning  what  ultimately  comes  from  God — differ- 
ent truths  indeed,  and  in  ways  differing  with  the  subject-matter 
— but  truth  from  God.  God,  therefore,  is  the  teacher  to  the 
mind  that  recognises  and  trusts  him  as  the  maker,  ruler,  and 
guide  of  man  and  the  world.  The  real  Christian  student  is 
devout  and  reverent.  He  may  and  should  pray  for  the  help  of 
that  Spirit  promised  to  guide  us  into  all  truth. 


16 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Study  of  nature  is  not  a  godless  work,  whose  essence  and 
purpose  is  to  make  men  atheistic.  The  Bible  tells  us  that 
nature  and  the  Bible  are  both  revelations  of  God. 

"The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God  and  the  firmament 
showeth  his  handiwork.  Day  unto  day  uttereth  speech,  and 
night  unto  night  showeth  knowledge.  There  is  no  (articulate) 
speech  or  language,  yet  without  these  their  voice  is  heard." 
(Psalm  19). 

"That  which  may  be  known  of  God  is  manifest  to  them ;  for 
God  has  showed  it  to  them.  For  the  invisible  things  of  him, 
from  the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being  under- 
stood by  the  things  that  are  made,  even  his  eternal  power  and 
Godhead."    (Romans  1.)    Other  Scriptures  teach  the  same. 

Nature  reveals  "his  power  and  Godhead,"  his  glory,  skill, 
and  wisdom — yea,  his  general  goodness,  as  Maker  and  Ruler. 
Scripture  reveals  his  grace  and  salvation,  redeeming  man  from 
sin  and  ignorance  and  blindness  caused  by  sin. 

Clearly  ascertained,  rightly  interpreted  Bible  truth  is 
supreme,  and  has  "right  of  way"  over  all  other  supposed  truth. 
If  conflict  were  possible  between  scientific  and  Bible  truth,  and 
should  it  emerge,  and  appear  irremovable,  the  supposed  scien- 
tific truth  must  yield.  Reason  must  bow  to  Revelation,  whose 
sphere  and  aims  are  moral  and  spiritual.  The  universe  of 
nature  is  subservient  to  the  moral  universe.  While  error  may 
be  as  possible  rn  the  interpretation  of  a  word,  as  of  a  fact, 
the  relatively  supreme  and  immediate  moral  purpose  of  the 
former  gives  it  primacy  in  supposed  possible  conflict  with  the 
latter.  The  evil  of  making  the  Bible  bow  to  supposed  scientific 
truth  would  entail  the  disaster  involved  in  impugning  the  trust- 
worthiness of  the  guide  and  helper,  the  light  and  power  of  the 
moral  and  spiritual  life.  Nature,  meant  to  be  the  arena,  and 
the  subservient  material  system  and  mechanism  of  law  and 
force  for  the  outworking  and  realisation  of  moral  ends,  would 
really  contradict  itself — its  ultimate  moral  purpose — if  its  facts 
contradicted  the  Bible  truths,  revealing  the  laws  and  realities  of 
that  moral  system  involved  in  both.  Nature  is  a  cosmos — a 
system  of  order  and  beauty — but  correlative  with,  and  subordi- 
nate to,  the  cosmos  of  moral  order  and  spiritual  beauty.  Hence, 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


17 


if  interpretations  of  the  two  seem  irreconcilably  conflicting,  the 
Bible  truth  must  have  the  primacy. 

Does  this  involve  dethronement  or  contradiction  of  reason? 
Xo.  Reason  and  nature,  rightly  interpreted,  find  their  glory 
and  honor  in  their  subserviency  to  that  order  of  spiritual  right- 
eousness which  Bible  truth  aims  to  realise.  God  and  moral 
truth  are  supreme.  The  glory  of  reason  is  to  read  ''God's 
thoughts  after  him"'  in  nature,  and  do  God's  will  as  revealed  in 
the  Bible.  Reason,  taught  by  history  and  Scripture,  can  wait 
for  ''new  light  to  break  forth  from  the  word"''  and  from  the 
works,  that  will  dissolve  the  apparent  conflict  between  them. 

The  sphere  and  purpose  of  Xatural  Science  and  of  the  Bible 
are  different.  The  sphere  of  Natural  Science  is  the  natural 
world.  It  studies  the  phenomena,  the  on-going  processes  of 
nature  in  order  to  understand  what  can  be  known  of  her  his- 
tory, her  laws  and  forces,  her  structure  and  mechanism,  the 
direction,  the  conditions,  and  the  forms  of  her  working  from  the 
microbe  to  the  macrocosm.  Man  studies  nature  primarily  to 
know  her,  and  then  to  use  her  aright  for  his  welfare.  Ascer- 
taining her  laws,  he  adapts  himself  to  them ;  discovering  her 
forces,  he  makes  them  instruments  of  his  will,  in  his  tools, 
inventions,  and  machines.  In  a  word,  the  study  of  the  works 
of  God  is  one  of  the  enabling  conditions  of  power  to  obey  the 
divine  command,  "Subdue  the  earth,"  and  take  the  throne  that 
God  gave  man  in  the  eighth  Psalm :  "Thou  hast  crowned  him 
with  glory  and  honor.  Thou  madest  him  to  have  dominion 
over  the  works  of  thy  hands.  Thou  hast  put  all  things  under 
his  feet." 

Thus  man  is  by  divine  appointment  "the  minister  and  inter- 
preter of  nature"  and  commanded  in  the  Bible  to  study  it,  seek 
out  its  wonders,  and  know  its  ways.  His  science,  acquainting 
him  with  nature's  laws,  i.  e.,  God's  uniform,  regular,  habitual 
methods  of  action,  enables  him  to  plan  his  industry  and  direct 
his  conduct  in  the  business  of  life. 

The  sphere  and  purpose  of  the  Bible,  on  the  other  hand,  is 
moral  and  spiritual.  "The  Scriptures  principally  teach  what 
man  is  to  believe  concerning  God,  and  what  duty  God  requires 
of  man."  From  this  exact  statement  of  the  Bible's  sphere — its 
subject  matter  and  purpose — it  follows  that  we  are  forbidden 


2—vr 


18 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


to  seek  in  it  anything  else  than  the  two  contents,  specified  as 
the  principal  teaching:  Faith  as  to  God,  and  man's  duty.  All 
else  is  subsidiary,  secondary,  incidental,  and  illustrative. 

It  is  revelation  to  man  as  a  fallen  sinner  making  known 
redemption  from  sin  through  a  Saviour.  Sin  not  only  defiles, 
it  blinds  and  leads  to  error.  Salvation,  through  the  atonement 
of  Christ — accepted  by  faith — is  salvation  from  sinning  and  its 
penalties  to  holiness,  and  from  ignorance  and  mental  blindness 
to  knowledge  of  truth — all  truth,  in  Christ,  God,  and  the  Bible, 
primarily.  And  this  truth  incites  him  on  to  know  truth  in 
nature,  history,  and  man.  Its  aim  is  to  enable  man  to  know 
God  aright,  to  love  God,  and  to  honor  him  with  holy  living. 
This  being  true,  we  would  expect  to  find  every  part  of  it  per- 
meated and  moulded  by  this  purpose.  As  every  bay  and  inlet 
of  the  sea  responds  to  the  pulsings  of  its  vast  tidal  movements, 
so  every  chapter  of  the  Bible  throbs  with  this  dominating  and 
all-moulding  purpose.  "The  waves  are  many,  the  sea  is  one; 
the  words  are  many,  the  truth  is  one." 

The  Bible  speaks  to  men,  not  as  men  of  science,  or  to  teach 
them  technical  science,  but  to  tell  them  of  God  and  duty.  It 
uses  the  common  language  of  every  day  life,  the  language  of 
appearances,  phenomenal  language  based  upon  the  sensuous 
impressions  of  things.  The  speech  of  the  field,  the  shop,  the 
mart,  and  the  home;  the  speech  of  the  poet,  the  shepherd,  the 
traveller,  and  the  soldier.  It  speaks  of  sunrise  and  sunset,  of 
the  quarters  and  corners  of  the  earth;  just  as  our  astronomers 
and  geographers  do,  even  in  almanacs,  though  they  know  the 
earth  moves,  not  the  sun,  and  the  earth  is  round  and  has  no 
corners,  just  as  men  will  always  speak;  for  the  "appearances  of 
things"  will  always  remain  substantially  the  same,  while  men's 
scientific  constructions  of  those  appearances  have  been  chang- 
ing nearly  every  century  for  thousands  of  years. 

Now,  the  obvious  conclusion  is  that  the  Bible  does  not  mean 
to  teach  any  scientific  theory  whatever  on  any  natural  object  it 
mentions  "in  the  heavens  above  or  the  earth  beneath,  or  in  the 
waters  under  the  earth."  It  teaches:  "God  made  all  things" 
wisely  and  well.  He  appointed  unto  all  things  in  heaven  and 
earth  their  times,  bounds,  and  seasons,  their  place  and  work  in 
the  universe.    He  ruleth  over  all.    His  goodness  is  over  all 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES 


19 


his  works.  Alan,  made  in  his  image,  is  appointed  to  '"dominion 
over  the  work  of  his  hands."  to  ""subdue  the  earth."  to  live  in  i: 
as  his  home,  and  to  "'glorify  God  and  to  enjoy  him  forever,"  as 
the  chief  end  of  life.  Hence  man  will  search  in  vain  within  the 
Bible  for  technical  teachings  on  any  of  the  sciences.  As  Calvin 
long  ago  said  :  ''If  you  seek  knowledge  on  astronomy  and  occult 
mysteries.,  go  elsewhere.'"''  Nature  is  man's  material  home;  the 
Bible  gives  the  laws  and  ideals  of  life  he  is  to  follow  in  that 
home.  To  understand  the  architecture  and  the  building 
methods,  the  tools  and  processes  employed  in  its  construction, 
man  must  study  the  building  itself.,  not  the  moral  code  given 
for  his  life  guidance  in  the  building.  This  code  is  silent  on  the 
subject  of  the  building's  architecture,  and  the  structural  pro- 
cesses involved  in  it,  beyond  the  mere  fact  that  God  was  its 
builder,  and  that  man  must  study  these  questions  in  the  build- 
ing itself,  and  use  it  rightly. 

These  general  truths,  in  germ  at  least,  were  seen  by  the 
ancient  thinkers.  An  old  German  said :  ''The  Bible  tells  us  not 
how  the  heavens  go.  but  how  to  go  to  heaven."  While  truth 
is  eternal  and  changeless.,  man's  knowledge  of  it  grows,  espe- 
cially in  its  extent,  application,  and  correlations.  The  growth 
in  this  knowledge  is  often  very  slow  in  God's  saints,  as  well  as 
in  sinners.  Hence  in  past  times,  remote  and  modern,  strifes 
have  arisen.  Men  have  injected  scientific  teachings  in  the 
Bible  which  God  never  put  there.  They  have  misrepresented 
the  word  and  its  Author  to  the  world,  making  the  Bible  teach 
contrary  to  well  established  scientific  truth.  Hence  they 
brought  the  Bible  into  disrepute,  caused  men  to  reject  it  and 
become  skeptics  or  unbelieving  rationalists.  Therefore,  the 
Christian  ministry  is  bound,  by  their  loyalty  to  God.  by  their 
love  for  the  souls  of  men  whom  they  are  commissioned  to  win 
for  Christ,  to  know  aright  God's  word  and  the  truth  in  his 
works,  lest  they  drive  men  to  hell  by  causing  them  to  reject  the 
Bible  and  the  Christ  that  God  gave  for  their  salvation. 

Thus  Dr.  YVoodrow  taught  for  about  twenty-five  years.  A 
word  summary  and  a  mere  skeleton  interpretation,  as  given 
above,  of  that  teaching  is  a  poor  portrayal  of  the  man  that 
taught,  of  his  method's  steady  progress  to  a  goal,,  the  scenery 
on  the  way,  the  vistas  opening  beyond  and  upward  to  other 


20 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


mountain  ranges  of  truth,  the  illumining  illustration,  the 
widened  vision  that  comes  from  the  unexpected  bringing 
together  of  a  simple  fact  and  a  great  truth — no  tongue  or  pen 
can  give  these. 

He  taught  simple  truths,  but  he  made  them  large  and  sacred. 
Reverence  towards  God,  faith  in  his  word,  hatred  of  sin,  love 
to  man,  and  what  God  can  do  for  him  through  his  pure  gospel, 
joy  in  life  and  work  in  this  world  because  it  is  God's  world, 
made  for  men  to  know  and  enjoy  by  studying  it,  and  God  in 
it — these  were  the  great  lessons  he  impressed  on  his  students. 

Some  have  charged  that  his  teaching  was  rationalistic.  Dr. 
Johnson  quotes  Dr.  Dabney  to  this  effect  in  a  letter  to  Dr. 
Strickler,  in  his  life  of  Dr.  Dabney,  page  345 :  "Now  what  is 
rationalism  in  religion?  Rationalism  is  the  adoption  of  reason 
as  our  sufficient  and  only  guide,  exclusive  of  tradition  and 
revelation."  It  is  the  setting  up  of  reason  as  the  supreme 
arbiter  as  against  the  Scripture  or  testimony — the  system  that 
deduces  religious  faiith  from  reason  as  distinguished  from  and 
opposed  to  revelation.  Now  it  is  easy  to  make  charges.  From 
the  foregoing  it  is  plain  that  every  fibre  of  Dr.  Woodrow's 
being  revolted  from  theological  rationalism — the  basis,  the 
frame-work,  the  spirit  and  aim,  and  every  substantive  doctrine 
he  taught  opposed  it.  Both  the  logical  implications  and  the 
explicit  statements  of  his  teachings  are  anti-rationalistic.  Dr. 
Dabney  was  a  great  and  good  man,  but  he  sometimes  erred. 
This  was  one  time.  Dr.  Woodrow  was  a  great  and  good  man 
and  sometimes  erred,  but  not  here. 

The  War  Between  the  States  from  1861  to  1865  drew  into 
the  Southern  armies  all  the  youth  and  all  the  gray-haired  men 
of  the  land  capable  of  service  in  the  field  and  in  the  hospital,  in 
armories,  shops,  foundries,  and  laboratories.  The  theological 
students  in  the  Columbia  Seminary  left  the  lecture  rooms  for 
the  battlefields. 

Scottish  blood  always  flows  faster  in  the  presence  of  war 
for  the  right.  Dr.  Woodrow's  blood  rose  to  the  normal  Scot- 
tish temperature.  He  volunteered  as  a  private  in  a  company 
formed  in  Columbia.  He  was  made  its  chaplain.  The  company 
was  disbanded  and  its  members  distributed  in  other  commands. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


21 


There  was  other  work  the  government  had  for  the  volunteer 
professor.  The  hospitals  needed  medicine.  There  were  few 
expert  chemists  in  the  South  who  could  manufacture  medicines. 
Dr.  Woodrow  was  one  who  could,  and  he  was  assigned  to  duty 
as  chief  of  the  Confederate  chemical  laboratory  in  Columbia. 
Here  he  wrought,  making  medicines  for  the  army,  a  work  as 
necessary  in  war  as  making  and  shooting  bullets.  Much  of  the 
work  was  done  in  the  Seminary  buildings. *  He  did  the  work 
as  chief.  Dr.  LeConte  was  the  official  head,  at  least  for  a  time, 
but  as  he  said  to  Dr.  Woodrow,  to  whom  he  gave  actual  charge, 
his  knowledge  of  chemistry  then  was  mainly  theoretical.  Dr  . 
Woodrow  was  expert  in  analytical  and  synthetic  chemistry. 
He  managed  the  work  with  the  tubes,  retorts,  pans,  etc.  Nitrate 
of  silver  was  one  of  the  main  products.  He  was  busy  with 
this  work  when  Sherman's  army  came  and  burned  Columbia. 
Dr.  Woodrow  secured  some  wagons,  put  in  them  his  materials 
and  apparatus,  and  saved  them  from  Sherman.  The  Confed- 
eracy went  down.  But  Dr.  Woodrow's  apparatus  was  not 
captured.  It  was  not  silver !  Some  of  the  tubes  and  pans  are 
in  the  family  home  to-day,  gathering  the  dust  of  time,  mute 
memorials  of  battlefields  and  camps  from  which  wounded  and 
sick  men  were  borne  to  hospitals,  and  treated,  soothed,  and 
healed,  made  ready  for  another  battle,  by  the  medicines  made 
in  them  more  than  forty  years  ago  by  'the  Seminary  professor, 
born  in  Carlisle,  England.  He  gave  his  State  the  best  he  had  ; 
in  peace,  an  upright  life;  in  war,  expert  skill. 

The  war  ended  with  a  people  overpowered,  homes  desolate, 
fortunes  destroyed,  and  institutions  impoverished.  It  was 
hard  to  be  brave  and  hopeful  in  those  days.  The  Seminary 
endowment  was  so  reduced  that  it  looked  like  a  forlorn  hope  to 
reopen  it.  But  there  were  men  in  those  days  who  loomed  above 
the  cloud  of  defeat,  erect  and  strong,  like  Israel's  heroes  of  old, 
beholding  Jerusalem  in  ruins.    A  call  rolled  and  vibrated  from 

*The  Confederate  laboratory  was  in  the  buildings  of  the  old  Fair 
Grounds  in  the  northwestern  part  of  Columbia.  Here  Dr.  Woodrow 
worked  all  day  with  his  men.  But  at  night,  with  his  wife  as  his  only 
assistant,  he  continued  to  work  for  many  hours,  using  his  own  apparatus 
and  materials,  the  Government  furnishing  only  the  silver  for  the  nitrate. 
It  was  this  private  work  alone  that  was  done  in  the  Seminary  chapel. 
Afterwards,  when  Sherman's  army  occupied  Columbia,  Mrs.  Woodrow, 
by  making  personal  application  to  Gen.  Logan,  succeeded  in  saving  Dr. 
Woodrow's  apparatus  from  destruction  by  the  soldiers. — Editor. 


22 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW, 


myriad  hearts  to  myriad  hearts :  "Let  us  rise  and  build."  "So 
they  strengthened  their  hand  for  this  good  work,  for  ithe  people 
had  a  mind  to  work."  They  began  rebuilding  States,  homes, 
families,  business,  schools,  colleges,  churches,  and  seminaries. 
Dr.  Adger  tells  us  that  in  counselling,  with  heavy  hearts,  over 
the  Seminary,  Dr.  Woodrow  inspired  them  all  by  his  hope  and 
vigor,  and  by  his  wise  plans  and  practical  help  they  soon 
reopened  the  Seminary,  in  September,  1865.  Strong  professors 
were  soon  ait  work.  Drs.  George  Howe,  John  B.  Adger,  James 
Woodrow,  and  soon  after,  W.  S.  Plumer  and  Jos.  R.  Wilson. 
Students  who  had  been  Confederate  soldiers  came  to  the  Semi- 
nary halls.  This  type  of  man  soon  found  Dr.  Woodrow  one 
of  the  powers  and  attractions  in  the  Seminary.  They  had 
learned  to  be  steady  and  hold  their  ground  or  charge  in  battle. 
A  few  years  later  when  the  controversial  storm  and  battle  raged 
around  their  honored  teacher,  they  stood  firm;  they  fought, 
too,  with  vim  and  valor,  feeling  sure,  then  and  now,  that  they 
were  "on  the  Lord's  side." 

The  Church's  benevolent  enterprises  needed  skilful  and  faith- 
ful management  of  their  finances.  The  Church  had  learned 
that  Dr.  Woodrow  could  "do  things ;"  hence  he  was  elected  to 
be  the  treasurer  for  the  General  Assembly's  Foreign  Missions 
and  Sustentation — an  office  he  filled  with  great  efficiency  from 
1861  to  1872.  In  1865  he  became  editor  and  proprietor  of  The 
Southern  Presbyterian,  a  weekly  religious  journal  which  he 
conducted  with  great  skill  and  power  until  1893.  This  paper 
under  his  editorship  was  a  power  for  good  in  the  Church, 
through  its  high  editorials,  its  fine  literature,  its  spotless 
editorial  integrity.  It  was  not  a  money-making  enterprise ;  but 
money-making  was  not  its  design.  Its  main  support  was  the 
editor's  pocket,  from  funds  made  elsewhere.  From  1861  to 
1885  he  was  editor  and  proprietor  of  The  Southern  Presbyterian 
Review,  a  strong  theological  quarterly  to  whose  pages  the  ablest 
men  of  the  Church  contributed  during  the  thirty-six  years  of  its 
life.  Like  the  weekly  periodical,  the  quarterly  had  to  be 
maintained  from  funds  outside  of  the  subscription  receipts,  but 
Dr.  Woodrow  and  his  co-laborers,  who  gave  freely  the  work  of 
their  brains  and  pens,  willingly  spent  money  for  the  spread  of 
truth  in  print. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


23 


He  served  as  professor  in  the  South  Carolina  College  from 
1869  to  1872,  withdrawing  in  1872,  when  the  Reconstruction 
regime — carpetbaggers,  scalawags,  and  negroes — seized  the 
College  and  rilled  its  chairs  and  its  dormitories  with  their  kind, 
and  held  it  until  South  Carolina,  under  the  leadership  of  Hamp- 
ton, with  his  co-patriots,  rose  up  in  righteous  might  and  put 
down  and  out  the  usurper  and  alien.  When  the  College  was 
reopened  in  1880,  Dr.  Woodrow  was  again  made  professor,  and 
served  until  1897. 

The  subjects  he  taught  were  as  follows: 

From  1869  to  1872:  Chemistry,  geology,  pharmacy,  and 
mineralogy. 

From  1880  to  1885:  Mineralogy,  geology,  botany,  and 
zoology. 

From  1888  to  1897 :  Geology  and  mineralogy. 

From  1888  to  1891  he  was  also  dean  of  the  school  of  liberal 
arts  and  sciences. 

His  powers  as  a  teacher,  indicated  in  the  foregoing  part  of 
this  sketch,  were  extraordinary  in  clearness  and  force  of 
instruction,  in  luminous  and  impressive  method — in  mastery  of 
principles  and  details,  in  burning  zeal  and  interest,  kindling  the 
same  in  others,  in  love  of  thoroughness  and  hatred  of  pretence 
that  shamed  indifference,  and  unflagging  industry  that  rebuked 
idleness  and  dignified  work  in  the  minds  of  his  students. 

He  was  president  of  the  College  from  1891  to  1897.  As 
president  his  career  justified  the  faith  of  the  students  and  of 
his  colleagues  in  their  expressed  wish  that  the  Board  of  Trus- 
tees would  make  him  President  McBryde's  successor.  He  took 
the  office  in  a  trying  time  of  political  commotion  in  this  State 
with  the  incoming  of  Gov.  B.  R.  Tillman's  administration. 
Uncertainty  prevailed  as  to  whether  the  new  regime  would 
abolish  the  College.  Young  men  who  would  otherwise  have 
entered  the  institution  went  to  other  colleges  in  the  State  and 
outside.  When  doubt  as  to  the  safety  and  permanence  of  the 
College  subsided,  the  attendance  increased  year  by  year  from 
seventy  to  about  one  hundred  and  eighty  students. 

President  Woodrow's  administration  deepened  confidence  in 
the  value  and  perpetuity  of  the  College.  He  administered 
discipline  and  the  finances  firmly  and  wisely.    He  trusted  and 


24 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


encouraged  his  colleagues,  and  upheld  them  by  his  warm  com- 
mendations at  home  and  abroad.  He  projected  admirable 
policies  of  instruction  and  equipment.  At  the  age  of  seventy, 
according  to  previous  purpose,  he  resigned.  It  would  have 
been  a  beneficent  course  for  the  College  if  the  Trustees  had 
insisted  on  retaining  him  as  professor.  His  wise  counsels  in 
the  faculty,  his  moral  influence  over  the  students,  his  wide 
reputation  for  high  scholarship  were  priceless  treasures  in  the 
resources  of  the  institution  for  the  making  of  men. 

The  history  of  the  evolution  controversy  in  the  Southern 
Presbyterian  Church  is  fresh  in  the  minds  of  men  now  living. 
It  can  not  be  rehearsed  in  the  limits  of  this  sketch.  Its  history 
is  on  record  in  books,  periodicals,  pamphlets,  and  church  court 
minutes.  Its  salient  points  may  be  briefly  indicated :  In  1884, 
at  the  request  of  the  Seminary  Board  of  Directors,  Dr.  Wood- 
row  delivered  an  address  on  evolution,  giving  his  views  as  to  its 
probable  truth,  and  its  relation  to  Bible  teaching.  The  address 
was  published.  The  Board  approved  of  his  view  that  the 
theory,  in  its  essential  nature,  is  a  hypothesis  as  to  the  mode  of 
the  creation  of  plants,  animals,  and  man's  body,  on  which  the 
Bible  is  silent,  and  that,  therefore,  it  does  not  contradict  the 
Bible.  They  did  not  commit  themselves  to  the  view  that  the 
facts  of  the  natural  sciences  prove  that  the  hypothesis  is  prob- 
ably true. 

A  storm  arose,  the  Church  was  divided,  one  party  holding 
that  the  hypothesis  does  contradict  the  Bible  teachings  as  to  the 
creation,  especially  concerning  man's  body.  The  other  party 
sided  with  Dr.  Woodrow  in  holding  that  the  Bible  is  silent 
on  the  subject  of  the  mode  by  which  God  created  Adam's  body 
out  of  dust,  or  earthly  material,  while  very  few  committed  them- 
selves to  the  view  that  the  hypothesis  is  probably  true ;  mainly 
on  the  ground  that  the  evidence  for  the  hypothesis  was  fully 
understood  only  by  expert  biologists,  was  not  fully  in  their 
possession,  hence  they  could  neither  affirm  nor  deny.  Holding 
the  hypothesis  to  be  extra-Biblical  and  theologically  harmless, 
they  were  unconcerned  from  the  religious  point  of  view, 
whether  it  is  true  or  false. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


25 


A  careful  examination  of  the  Scripture  statements  concerning 
creation  shows  that  they  mean  to  teach  merely  the  fact  that  God 
created  Adam's  body  "from  dust;"  whether  this  dust  was 
organic  or  inorganic;  whether  the  processes  employed  were 
immediate  fashioning  from  clay  and  sand,  or  whether  they  were 
derivative,  genetic,  biological  processes ;  whether  God  made 
Adam's  body  directly,  or  by  long  processes  of  descent  through 
pre-existing  animal  forms  until  "in  the  end  of  the  ages"  of  this 
mediate  derivative  making  the  predetermined  body  was,  by  the 
final  creative  act,  transformed  into  final  shape,  and  made  the 
body  of  man  when  "God  breathed  into  it  the  breath  of  life,  and 
man  became  a  living  soul,"  on  these  questions,  said  Dr.  Wood- 
row,  the  Bible  is  silent.  It  states  the  fact  of  the  creation  by 
God  of  man's  body  from  dust.  It  says  nothing  of  how  he  did 
it,  how  long  the  creative  process  lasted,  nothing  of  the  previous 
history  of  the  dust  from  which  God  made  Adam's  body.  The 
Bible  being  silent  on  these  subjects,  the  Christian  believer  is 
free  to  seek  information  on  them  in  the  only  place  where  it  can 
be  found,  in  God's  works  in  nature. 

The  evidence  from  nature  makes  the  theory  probably  true. 
The  Bible  neither  denies  nor  affirms  this  theory,  hence  it  is  not 
the  Church's  province  to  affirm  or  deny.  It  is  extra-biblical, 
hence  beyond  the  Church's  province,  just  like  theories  in  chem- 
istry, botany,  or  zoology.  A  Christian  is  just  as  free  to  accept 
or  reject  the  theory  of  evolution  as  he  is  to  accept  the  theory 
that  Mars  is  inhabited,  or  that  radium  is  an  element. 

Dr.  Woodrow  never  committed  himself  definitely  to  any  of 
the  twenty  forms  of  the  evolution  theory,  which,  in  substance, 
is  as  old  as  the  Greek  philosopher,  Anaximander,  600  B.  C. 
He  strove  to  prevent  the  Church  from  committing  herself  for 
or  against  the  theory,  because  she  would  thereby  disobey  God, 
misrepresent  his  word,  and  go  beyond  her  province  into  the 
secular  domain. 

The  general  results  of  the  controversy  were :  Dr.  Woodrow 
was  removed  from  the  Seminary  by  the  controlling  Synods ;  a 
majority  of  South  Carolina  Synod  stood  by  him.  He  was 
tried  by  his  Presbytery  and  acquitted  of  heresy  in  his  belief  by 
a  nearly  three-fourths  vote.  Georgia  Synod,  on  a  complaint, 
annulled  this  judgment.    The  General  Assembly  of  1888  con- 


26 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


firmed  Synod's  annulment,  but  in  so  doing  declared  through  its 
Moderator  and  Georgia  Synod's  counsel  that  whether  the 
Assembly  sustained  or  overruled  the  complaint,  Dr.  Woodrow's 
ecclesiastical  status,  as  fixed  by  his  Presbytery's  judgment  of 
acquittal,  would  not  be  affected,  i.  c,  that  he  would  still  remain 
as  a  regular  orthodox  minister  in  good  standing. 

His  Presbytery  in  1888  declared  that  the  annulment  of  her 
judgment,  by  Synod  and  Assembly,  did  not  affect,  in  the  slight- 
est degree,  Dr.  Woodrow's  good  standing.  Thereupon,  his 
Presbytery  unanimously  elected  him  Moderator  and  sent  him 
as  her  commissioner  to  the  next  Assembly.  Georgia  Synod 
approved  the  records  of  Presbytery's  action  and  the  General 
Assembly  approved  of  Georgia's  approval,  and  appointed  Dr. 
Woodrow  chairman  of  an  important  committee  in  1889  and  in 
1899.  Thus  the  Church,  through  her  courts  and  agencies, 
declared  that  Dr.  Woodrow's  beliefs  do  not  affect  a  man's 
orthodoxy  or  soundness  in  Biblical,  Christian  faith,  nor  his 
good  standing  in  the  Church.  And  yet  inconsistently  affirmed 
in  removing  him  from  the  Seminary  that  they  were  so  unsound 
that  he  must  not  teach  them  to  her  young  men.  That  teaching, 
let  it  be  marked,  was  that  the  Bible  is  silent  on  evolution  as 
God's  mode  of  creation.  He  never  taught  his  students  that 
evolution  was  true,  or,  for  that  matter,  that  many  other  accepted 
scientific  doctrines,  on  many  subjects,  were  true.  He  taught 
that,  true  or  false,  they  do  not  affect  the  Bible.  This  was  the 
gist  of  his  teaching  on  evolution.  He  would  have  resisted  to 
the  death  the  teaching  of  evolution  as  true  by  the  Church, 
because  it  is  not  her  business  to  teach  science,  as  such,  for  the 
Bible  does  not  teach  it.  Her  sole  duty  is  to  teach  God's  word 
and  preach  the  gospel.  Scientific  theories,  as  extra-biblical, 
are  left  to  private  judgment  and  secular  agencies. 

One  result  of  the  conflict  is  a  blessing  to  all  Christendom. 
No  other  Church  will  ever  need  to  fight  that  battle.  Dr.  Wood- 
row's  work  settled  that  question  forever.  The  intelligent 
Christian  world  believes  that  he  was  right.  Doubtless  a  vast 
majority  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church  to-day  would 
agree  with  Dr.  Woodrow  in  his  main  contention:  That  the 
Bible  is  silent  on  evolution.  The  historic  establishment  of 
great  principles  often  wins  its  way  through  the  martyrdom  of 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES 


■2: 


their  first  advocates,  The  form  of  martyrdom  Dr.  Woodrow 
suffered,  in  his  professorial  deposition  and  in  the  condemnation 
of  many  in  his  Church,  whose  friendship  and  approval  he  would 
have  prized,  is  the  price  he  willingly  paid,  though  the  pain  was 
great,  for  the  triumph  of  the  truth  he  loved.  He  was  willing 
to  die  for  truth  and  the  Lord  of  truth.  Time  will  yet  crown 
his  name  and  memory  with  the  wreath  that  he  ought  to  have 
worn  in  life.  The  Church  would  have  honored  and  blessed 
herself,  had  she  kept  on  his  head  the  Seminary  professorial 
crown  until  the  Lord  called  him  above  to  give  him  the  ' "crown 
of  righteousness."'  He  served  his  Church  in  her  courts  as 
faithfully  in  these  last  years  after  his  removal  from  the  Semi- 
nary as  in  former  times.  He  was  no  Achilles  sulking  in  his 
tent.  With  magnanimous  ardor  he  cooperated  heartily  with 
his  fellow-presbyters  in  doing  all  he  could,  by  wise  and  earnest 
counsel,  for  the  welfare  of  the  Seminary  whose  door  had  been 
closed  against  him.  Men  will  endorse  the  judgment  and  the 
prophecy  of  the  clear-headed  and  righteous-hearted  Dr.  Peck 
in  his  defence  of  Dr.  Woodrow.  though  not  adopting  his  views : 
'"'He  has  been  righteously  acquitted  by  his  Presbytery  of  the 
charge  of  heresy.  He  did  not  teach  evolution  in  the  Seminary. 
The  agitation  did  not  begin  with  him.  and  his  whole  course  has 
been  one  of  self-defence — defence  of  his  legal  rights  as  a  pro- 
fessor and  a  minister  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  He  has  not 
been  fairly  dealt  with.  The  constitution  of  the  Seminary  and 
the  constitution  of  the  Church  have  both  been  violated  in  perse- 
cuting him.  and  I  am  also  sure  that  the  Church  will  acknowl- 
edge it  in  the  end."  Yes,  in  the  end,  when  we  no  longer  "see 
through  a  glass  darkly,  but  face  to  face.'"' 

He  was  a  leader  in  the  courts  and  agencies  of  his  Church. 
He  was  a  member  of  Augusta  Presbytery.  Synod  of  Georgia, 
until  1892,  and  of  South  Carolina  Presbytery.  Synod  of  South 
Carolina,  from  1892  until  his  death.  Tan.  17,  1907;  commis- 
sioner from  these  Presbyteries  to  the  General  Assembly  in  1866, 
1877,  1879,  1880,  1886.  1889.  1896.  and  1899  ;  moderator  of  the 
Synod  of  Georgia  in  18T9  and  of  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina 
in  1901 ;  corresponding  delegate  from  the  Southern  Presby- 
terian Church  to  the  Council  of  Churches  in  Great  Britain  and 
the  Continent  of  Europe  in  1874.    In  all  these  bodies  he  was 


28 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


influential  in  guiding  and  shaping  their  proceedings.  His  mind 
was  potent  in  moulding  to  its  final  form  the  revised  Book  of 
Order  and  Discipline  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church. 
His  wide  knowledge  of  law  and  of  constitutional  principles 
made  him  a  legal  light  in  the  Church. 

In  ecclesiastical  deliberations  he  was  a  tower  of  strength  in 
debate.  The  shock  of  battle  brought  out  his  full  force  and  fire, 
and  made  his  eloquence  "logic  all  aflame."  In  debate,  he  was 
a  "hot  spur"  without  his  rashness;  in  controversy,  a  Junius 
without  his  malignity.  In  the  ardor,  lucid  diction,  classical 
correctness,  and  epigrammatic  terseness  of  his  style;  in  his 
keen  wit,  quick  antithetic  retort,  and  in  the  illustrative  energy 
of  his  apt  and  convincing  similes,  as  well  as  in  his  knowledge 
of  detail,  grasp  of  principles,  and  vigor  of  sentiment,  his 
polemic  powers  had  traits  like  those  of  the  great  Junius,  whose 
"letters"  were  a  terror  to  statesmen  and  a  wonder  to  scholars. 
He  had  Junius's  power  without  his  ferocity,  his  skill  without 
his  cunning,  for  he  grieved  to  wound  a  heart,  and  he  scorned 
to  fight  from  ambush.  Those  who  heard  him,  especially  in  the 
great  debates  in  the  Assemblies  of  '66,  '80,  '86,  and  '88,  and  in 
the  Synods  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  in  '84,  were 
impressed,  not  only  by  his  learning  and  power,  but  by  his 
dignity  and  courtesy.  While  he  was  a  raging  lion  against 
wrong  and  error,  he  was  gallant  and  knightly  towards  the  per- 
sons of  his  opponents. 

That  men  should  crown  this  man  is  but  natural.  One  way 
of  crowning  is  by  fellowship,  sought  and  proffered.  Another 
way  is  by  the  bestowing  of  titles  and  degrees,  as  marks  of  honor 
deserved  and  acclaims  of  worth  and  nobility  recognised.  Dr. 
Woodrow  wore  many  such  crowns.  He  was  made  a  member 
of  the  following  learned  societies :  The  Victoria  Institute, 
London;  Isis,  Dresden;  The  Scientific  Association  of  Switzer- 
land, The  Scientific  Association  of  German  Naturalists,  Fellow 
of  the  American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science, 
Fellow  of  the  International  Congress  of  Geologists. 

He  received  the  following  titles :  Ph.  D.,  summa  cum  laude, 
from  Heidelberg  University;  honorary  M.  D.,  from  the 
University  of  Georgia ;  D.  D.,  from  Hampden-Sidney  college ; 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


29 


IX.  D.,  from  Davidson  college  ;  J.  U.  D..  f doctor  of  both  canon 
and  civil  law,)  from  Washington  and  Jefferson  college. 

In  the  city  of  his  citizenship.  Columbia,  his  townsmen,  recog- 
nising his  business  wisdom  and  probity,  made  him  president  of 
the  Central  National  Bank  from  1888  to  1891,  and  again  from 
1897  to  1901.  Xot  by  inheritance,  but  by  industry  and  economy 
he  was  possessed  of  worldly  substance.  His  activity  in  public 
welfare  extended  to  every  form  of  lawful  interest. 

He  was  a  man  of  amazing  industry  and  versatility.  He 
impressed  men  as  an  expert  in  even*  form  of  work  he  under- 
took. He  never  idled.  Robert  says  that  "chess  was  the 
recreation'7  of  his  father.  James,  and  quaintly  adds  "if  chess 
can  be  called  recreation,  for  it  is  a  very  up-taking  game."  Dr. 
Woodrow's  recreation  was  change  of  work,  from  lecture  room 
to  laboratory,  editorial  chair  to  bank,  debate  in  faculty  and 
Presbytery.  He  kept  a  few  scientific  instruments  in  his  study, 
collections  of  minerals,  often  plants,  etc.  To  him  work  was 
play,  and  play  was  work.  He  watched  with  deepest  interest  all 
the  movements  of  thought  and  life  in  religion,  science,  educa- 
tion, politics,  commerce,  and  industry.  Often  strangers  talking 
with  him  on  some  subject,  apparently  remote  from  his  profes- 
sional work,  thought  he  was  a  specialist  on  that  subject. 

Life  to  him  was  large,  because  its  field  was  the  world  God 
upheld  and  ruled — the  field  where  God's  thoughts  and  plans  had 
sway. 

He  was  a  man  whose  courage  was  uncooled  by  danger,  for  it 
had  God  for  its  reason. 

His  honor  unsullied  shone,  for  he  walked  the  peaks  of  right 
whose  snows  no  dust  of  wrong  defiles. 

His  epitaph  will  be  in  the  hearts  of  men  whom  his  life  helped 
to  love  God  and  good  men. 

His  reward  will  be  the  presence  of  the  King  he  served  and 
the  full  vision  of  the  truth  he  loved. 


Editorially  The  State  said  : 

Within  the  limits  prescribed  by  a  newspaper's  restrictions, 
the  life  story  of  James  Woodrow,  distinguished  citizen,  is  told 
in  The  State  to-day  by  one  competent,  through  personal  associ- 
ation and  scholarly  ability,  to  speak  of  one  of  the  most  remark- 


30 


DR.  JAME)S  WOODROW. 


able  personalities  this  country  has  known.  To  that  sketch  we 
can  add  nothing. 

Under  the  glaring  light  of  publicity  that  falls  perpetually 
upon  the  great  statesman  or  orator  or  soldier,  their  names 
become  household  words,  and  they  are  ever  present  in  the 
public  mind;  but  in  other  fields  of  greatness  there  is  a  shade 
that  partially  screens  even  the  most  brilliant.  In  the  inner 
circle  of  scientists,  in  the  libraries  of  the  scholars,  and  in  the 
studies  of  churchmen,  James  Woodrow  is  known  from  sea  to 
sea,  but  there  will  be  many  even  in  his  home  city  who  will  this 
morning  read  of  his  remarkable  attainments  and  career  of  use- 
fulness, and  wonder  at  their  ignorance  of  the  greatness  of  their 
neighbor. 

Greatness  as  applied  to  men  is  more  frequently  misapplied 
than  correctly  employed  in  description.  There  are  men  great 
in  some  specialty  ;  there  are  some  whose  qualities  of  greatness 
are  marred  by  other  qualities  representing  the  antithesis  of 
greatness.  Few,  very  few,  among  the  teeming  millions,  so 
successfully  develop  their  endowments  by  nature  as  did  this 
distinguished  adopted  son  of  South  Carolina.  A  profound 
scholar,  a  deep  theologian,  a  practical  scientist,  a  splendid 
teacher,  a  strong  and  logical  writer,  a  business  man  of  high 
ability,  with  great  courage  and  unwavering  determination,  and 
possessed  of  the  philosophy  of  self-control  that  gave  absolute 
mental  poise. 

Dr.  Woodrow  was  a  mental  giant,  but  far  more  uncommon, 
there  was  a  full  rounding,  a  symmetrical  filling  out,  a  perfected 
whole.  His  was  a  great  mind,  admirably  balanced ;  the  blend- 
ing and  application  of  theoretical  and  practical  wisdom  of  the 
highest  order.  His  was  the  growth  of  other  times  and  other 
systems. 


The  following  also  appeared  in  The  State  of  Jan.  18,  1907 : 
After  weeks  of  patient  suffering  James  Woodrow  died  yes- 
terday at  his  home  on  Washington  street.  It  was  like  the 
dying  of  the  embers,  so  peacefully  did  his  soul  leave  its  earthly 
tenement.  The  fire  of  vitality  had  been  smouldering;  and 
gently,  almost  imperceptibly,  dissolution  had  crept  upon  the 
great  soul.    As  the  dawn  of  a  beautiful  day  came  upon  the  city 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


31 


he  loved,  his  life  ended  and  his  immortal  self  passed  into  the 
new  day  of  the  great  beyond. 

Dr.  Woodrow  had  been  ill  for  months,  and  he  had  suffered 
uncomplainingly.  Because  his  death  was  looked  for  does  not 
remove  any  of  the  weight  of  sorrow  from  the  hearts  of  those 
who  loved  him.  Though  not  a  native  of  this  State,  he  had 
done  much  for  South  Carolina  and  for  Columbia. 

A  sketch  of  his  life  will  be  found  elsewhere  in  The  State. 
His  biographer,  Dr.  Flinn,  gives  a  beautiful  pen  picture  of  Dr. 
Woodrow,  the  preacher,  professor,  patriot.  There  is  one  inci- 
dent which  is  not  mentioned,  and  this  will  summerise  the  high 
principles  of  his  life  more  aptly  than  all  others. 

The  Foreign  Missions  Executive  Committee  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church  determined  to 
invest  thousands  of  dollars  of  the  funds  with  Hoyt  &  Gardner 
of  New  York.  Dr.  Woodrow,  as  treasurer,  firmly  opposed  the 
measure,  but  it  was  carried  through  against  his  will  and  protest. 
Not  long  afterwards  Hoyt  &  Gardner  failed.  Dr.  Woodrow 
was  away  from  home  at  the  time.  His  wife  telegraphed  him 
about  the  failure,  advising  him  to  go  to  New  York  and  see 
what  could  be  done.  Cheques  amounting  to  about  $4,000  had 
been  mailed  by  Dr.  Woodrow  to  missionaries  in  various  parts 
of  the  world  to  pay  their  current  salaries.  Dr.  Woodrow 
hastened  to  New  York.  A  grave  crisis  confronted  him  and 
the  Church.  Unless  satisfactory  business  arrangements  could 
be  made,  the  cheques  on  Hoyt  &  Gardner  would  be  protested, 
the  missionaries  would  be  in  distress,  the  Church  would  be  in 
trouble.  Dr.  Woodrow  was  equal  to  the  emergency.  He 
arranged  with  another  bank  to  make  good  the  Hoyt  &  Gardner 
cheques,  and  the  foreign  missionaries  were  so  notified  by  cable. 
To  secure  the  bank  making  this  guarantee,  Dr.  Woodrow  mort- 
gaged his  home  in  Columbia,  corner  Washington  and  Sumter 
streets. 

At  the  next  meeting  of  the  Executive  Committee  the  situation 
was  discussed.  Dr.  Woodrow  insisted  that  the  immediate 
agents  in  the  matter,  and  not  the  Church,  must  be  the  losers, 
and  that  the  situation  must  be  met  within  the  committee  itself ; 
otherwise  a  grievous  scandal  would  ensue,  confidence  would  be 
destroyed,  and  the  work  of  the  Church  would  be  crippled ;  and 


32 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


besides,  honor  and  right  required  this  course.  He  held  that  the 
arrangements  he  had  made  in  New  York  must  stand.  The 
committee  opposed,  urging  that  the  investment  had  been  made 
against  his  counsel  and  will ;  that  he  was  not  to  blame,  and  that 
the  fault  lay  with  the  committee.  But  Dr.  Woodrow  stood 
firm,  and  shouldered  the  loss. 

To  this  day  the  Church  has  never  known  how  his  sense  of 
honor  and  regard  for  the  Church's  welfare  saved  her  from 
disastrous,  crippling  scandal,  distrust,  and  great  soreness  of 
heart.  He  knew  the  value  of  money,  but  he  was  its  master, 
not  its  servant.  While  not  personally  responsible,  he  willingly 
made  sacrifices  to  protect  the  honor  and  welfare  of  his  Church. 

On  account  of  the  fact  that  some  members  of  the  family  will 
be  detained,  the  hour  of  the  funeral  has  been  changed  from 
twelve  until  three  o'clock  to-day.  The  pallbearers  will  be: 
Honorary,  Mr.  Allen  Jones,  Mr.  John  T.  Sloan,  Pres.  Benj. 
Sloan,  Judge  A.  C.  Haskell,  Dr.  E.  S.  Joynes,  Dr.  T.  T.  Moore, 
Dr.  W.  B.  Burney,  Mr.  W.  G.  Childs,  Dr.  J.  W.  Klinn,  Dr.  T. 
M.  DuBose,  Dr.  Lancaster,  Mr.  John  Crawford,  Mr.  J.  L. 
Mimnaugh,  Mr.  R.  W.  Shand. 

Active:  Mr.  T.  S.  Bryan,  Mr.  W.  Clark,  Mr.  W.  Gordon 
Belser,  Mr.  J.  S.  Muller,  Mr.  W.  D.  Melton,  Mr.  Henry  Muller, 
Mr.  W.  M.  Gibbes,  Jr.,  Mr.  D.  L.  Bryan,  Mr.  August  Kohn. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


33 


A  Series  of  Articles  Appearing'  in  The  Central 
Presbyterian,  Nov.  13th,  20th,  and  27th. 


BY  THE  REV.  DR.  A.  M.  ERASER. 


PART  I. 

ANCESTRY,  SCHOLARSHIP,   TEACHING,   CIVIC  SERVICES. 

The  Rev.  James  Woodrow,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  died  at  his  home, 
in  Columbia,  S.  C,  January  17,  1907,  in  the  seventy-ninth  year 
of  his  age.  He  was  one  of  the  great  men  of  the  Southern 
Presbyterian  Church.  This  estimate  of  him  is  based  on  the 
fulness  and  accuracy  of  his  learning,  the  variety  of  his  attain- 
ments, his  ability  and  success  as  a  teacher,  the  force  of  his 
personal  character,  the  number  of  men  moulded  by  his  influ- 
ence, the  powerful  and  wholesome  impression  he  made  upon 
his  students,  and  his  work  as  an  editor,  presbyter,  and  citizen. 
Considering  his  life  as  a  whole,  he  is  entitled  to  a  place  in  the 
front  rank  of  the  men  who  have  made  our  Church  what  it  is. 

When  I  entered  Columbia  Seminary,  I  was  conscious  of  a 
strong  prejudice  against  Dr.  Woodrow.  I  do  not  know  whence 
that  prejudice  came,  for  my  father,  who  was  one  of  the  direct- 
ors of  the  Seminary  and  sometimes  warmly  differed  with  him 
in  matters  of  Seminary  policy,  and  at  other  times  as  heartily 
agreed  with  him,  always  held  him  in  the  highest  admiration. 
But  whatever  was  the  source  of  the  prejudice,  it  did  not  con- 
tinue after  I  became  his  pupil.  I  soon  began  to  admire  his 
intellect,  his  masterly  teaching,  and  his  immense  industry,  then 
to  revere  his  devotion  to  truth  and  righteousness,  and  then  to 
love  the  man  for  the  warmth  of  his  heart,  for  the  tenderness  of 
his  sympathies,  for  his  unobtrusive  charities,  and  for  the 
loyalty  of  his  friendship.  It  is  no  disparagement  of  the  other 
teachers  under  whom  I  sat,  and  some  of  whom  were  superb 
men,  to  say  that  for  me  Dr.  Woodrow  was  the  finest  teacher  1 
ever  had.  I  owe  more  to  him  than  to  any  other  man  I  ever  met, 
except  my  own  father.  I  therefore  crave  the  privilege  of  pay- 
ing  to  his  memory  some  small  tribute  of  veneration,  affection, 
and  gratitude. 
3— w 


34 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


The  Rev.  Dr.  J.  William  Flinn,  a  colleague  of  Dr.  Woodrow 
in  the  faculty  of  the  South  Carolina  College,  and  a  warm 
personal  friend  for  many  years,  contributed  to  the  Charleston 
News  and  Courier  and  The  State  of  Columbia  on  the  day  after 
his  death  an  elaborate  sketch  of  his  life.  I  am  indebted  to  that 
carefully  prepared  sketch  for  many  of  the  facts  to  which  I  shall 
allude. 

Dr.  Woodrow  was  of  a  family  distinguished  for  learning, 
piety,  and  notable  service.  In  every  generation  of  this  family, 
for  centuries,  there  have  been  one  or  more  ministers  of  the 
Gospel,  including  Patrick  Wodrow,  a  Roman  Catholic  priest 
in  Scotland  before  the  Reformation,  who  was  one  of  the  first 
to  embrace  the  doctrines  and  spirit  of  Protestantism.  Another 
ancestor  was  the  Rev.  James  Wodrow,  D.  D.,  of  the  seven- 
teenth century,  a  great-grandson  of  Patrick  Wodrow,  and  one 
of  the  most  influential  ministers  in  Scotland  in  his  day.  In 
this  family  was  the  militant  blood  of  Robert  the  Bruce,  but 
sublimated  to  a  finer  quality  of  devotion  to  right,  patient  endur- 
ance, indomitable  perseverance,  and  tolerant  charity,  as  it  passed 
through  the  veins  of  the  confessors  of  the  Reformation  time. 

Dr.  Woodrow  was  an  accomplished  scholar  in  law,  the 
sciences,  and  theology.  The  superiority  of  his  scholarship  was 
fully  recognised  in  the  world  of  education  and  research.  Upon 
his  graduation  at  Heidelberg  he  was  offered  a  full  professorship 
there.  That  was  a  rare  tribute  to  an  American  from  a  German 
university.  Before  that  he  had  been  a  pupil  of  Agassiz,  and  a 
warm  personal  friendship  between  the  two  continued  through- 
out the  life  of  Agassiz.  He  was  a  "fellow"  of  many  of  the 
leading  societies  for  the  promotion  of  learning  and  original 
research,  and  institutions  of  learning  heaped  honorary  degrees 
upon  him.  Nor  was  his  store  of  information  derived  altogether 
from  books.  He  went  to  the  original  sources  and  studied 
nature  for  himself  at  first  hand.  He  spent  well-nigh  a  half- 
certtury  in  education,  in  Alabama,  at  Oglethorpe  University  in 
Georgia,  at  Columbia  Theological  Seminary,  and  in  the  South 
Carolina  College,  of  which  he  became  at  last  the  president. 
All  of  this  time  a  steady  stream  of  students  flowed  through  his 
life.  Upon  the  majority  of  these  his  influence  was  that  of  a 
commanding  personality.    Of  course  there  were  some  of  his 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


35 


students  who  lacked  the  personal  affinity  with  him  which  is  so 
important  for  getting  the  greatest  benefit  from  a  teacher.  This 
is  always  true,  whoever  the  teacher  may  be.  But  his  influence 
upon  the  large  majority  of  his  students  was  powerful  and 
gracious. 

One  of  the  most  distinguished  of  his  pupils  was  Sidney 
Lanier,  the  poet  of  Georgia.  He  declared  that  "the  strongest 
and  most  valuable  stimulus  of  his  youth"  he  owed  to  Dr. 
Woodrow.  He  also  said :  "I  am  more  indebted  to  Dr.  Wood- 
row  than  to  any  living  man  for  shaping  my  mental  attitude 
toward  nature  and  life.  His  spirit  and  method  not  only  guided 
and  enlarged  my  scientific  knowledge,  but  they  had  a  formative 
influence  on  my  thought  and  fancy  in  all  my  literary  work." 

An  incident  will  illustrate  the  regard  in  which  he  was  held 
by  his  students.  There  was  a  student  with  whom  he  had  a 
misunderstanding  in  the  Seminary.  An  alienation  sprang  up 
between  them  which  lasted  for  years.  But  when,  in  the  course 
of  time,  Dr.  Woodrow's  trouble  came,  the  former  student  came 
at  once  to  his  support  in  the  most  generous  and  manly  manner. 
He  boldly  and  repeatedly  bore  testimony  to  his  profound 
respect  for  Dr.  Woodrow's  godly  character  and  his  learning, 
and  did  effective  service  in  putting  his  position  correctly  before 
the  Church.  All  of  this  he  did  at  the  risk  of  his  own  popularity 
in  the  Church  and  at  the  risk  of  a  business  enterprise  upon 
which  he  had  just  embarked,  and  which  he  eventually  lost. 

Dr.  Woodrow  taught  chiefly  by  lectures,  and  I  recall  vividly 
one  of  the  peculiarities  of  his  style.  He  would  array  his  facts 
before  the  class  in  the  most  deliberate,  patient,  and  painstaking 
manner,  and  keep  the  listener  wondering  what  connexion  all 
these  facts  had  with  each  other.  But  as  he  drew  near  to  the 
end  a  few  concluding  sentences  would  throw  a  light  back  upon 
the  entire  group  of  facts  and  show  their  relation  to  each  other, 
and  the  whole  discourse,  '''fitly  joined  together  by  that  which 
every  part  supplieth,"  would  stand  out  before  the  mind,  com- 
plete, symmetrical,  luminous,  beautiful. 

Having  an  enormous  capacity  for  work,  he  was  frequently 
engaged  in  collateral  secular  work,  but  never  so  much  so  as  to 
impair  his  efficiency  in  either  sphere.  During  the  war  he  was 
practically  the  head  of  the  Confederate  Government's  plant  at 


3G 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Columbia  for  the  manufacture  of  medicines.  Dr.  Le  Conte 
was  the  nominal  head,  but  he  declared  that  his  own  knowledge 
of  the  subject  was  theoretical,  and  as  Dr.  Woodrow' s  was 
practical  and  expert,  he  placed  him  in  actual  charge.  The 
buildings  of  Columbia  Seminary  were  used  for  the  purpose.* 
A  part  of  the  apparatus  then  used  is  still  in  possession  of  the 
family,  and  if  it  were  available,  would  be  a  valuable  addition 
to  the  Confederate  museum.  In  after  years,  at  two  different 
times,  he  was  called  to  be  the  president  of  one  of  the  leading 
banking  institutions  in  Columbia. 

On  the  day  following  his  death  one  of  the  oldest  and  most 
influential  daily  papers  in  the  State  paid  him  the  following 
tribute:  "Although  modest  to  a  degree  and  shrinking  always 
from  publicity,  it  may  yet  be  doubted  whether  any  South  Caro- 
linian was  so  widely  known  and  so  generally  respected  among 
scholars  and  men  of  attainments  the  world  over  as  Dr.  Wood- 
row.  America  boasted  few  riper  scholars,  and  his  versatility 
was  no  less  remarkable  than  the  thoroughness  with  which  he 
mastered  every  subject  to  which  he  devoted  his  attention.  He 
was  a  theologian  of  eminence.  His  scientific  attainments  were 
recognised  in  every  part  of  the  globe.  As  a  teacher  he  dis- 
played unusual  ability ;  and  as  the  head  of  the  South  Carolina 
College  he  administered  the  affairs  of  that  institution  with 
rare  capacity.  He  was  an  editor,  a  teacher,  a  deep  student, 
the  executive  head  of  a  great  State  college,  and  yet,  in  addition 
to  all  these  things,  found  time  to  devote  to  business  affairs, 
where  he  displayed  the  soundest  of  judgment,  the  highest  value 
being  placed  upon  his  advice." 

PART  II. 

CHARACTER — SERVICES  TO  THE  CHURCH — PUBLIC  SPEAKING. 

I  never  knew  Dr.  Woodrow,  in  a  single  instance,  to  flinch 
from  doing  or  saying  what  he  believed  to  be  right.  No  fear, 
no  consideration  of  his  own  interests  or  of  the  feelings  of 

*The  Confederate  Government  medical  laboratory  was  located  in  the 
buildings  of  the  Fair  Grounds  in  the  northwestern  part  of  Columbia. 
But,  after  working  there  all  day,  Dr.  Woodrow  continued  his  labors  far 
into  the  night,  ably  assisted  in  this,  as  in  all  his  other  undertakings,  by 
his  wife.  This  is  the  work  which  was  done  in  the  Seminary  chapel. — 
Editor. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


37 


others  kept  him  from  the  discharge  of  his  duty.  When  he 
exclaimed  in  self-defence  before  the  Baltimore  Assembly. 
"Moderator,  I  fear  no  one  but  God,  and  I  fear  him  only  as  my 
heavenly  Father,"  all  who  had  ever  known  him  well  knew  that 
he  was  speaking  the  literal  truth. 

Like  Stonewall  Jackson,  and  like  most  men  in  whom  the 
sense  of  righteousness  is  highly  developed,  he  had  no  patience 
with  the  man  who  shirked  his  duty  or  who  was  in  any  respect 
dishonorable.  Alas!  it  is  true  that  even  students  of  theology 
are  not  always  faithful  men.  Anything  like  pretence  or  a 
lack  of  seriousness,  or  a  want  of  conscience  on  the  part  of  a 
student  for  the  Gospel  ministry  was  shocking  to  him,  and  he 
never  concealed  his  scorn.  Once  a  student  had  been  appointed 
to  debate  in  the  Seminary  chapel  on  the  question  of  Calvin's 
part  in  the  burning  of  Servetus,  and  Dr.  Woodrow  was  to 
preside  on  the  occasion.  But  the  young  man  failed  to  appear 
when  the  time  came  for  the  debate.  As  he  went  to  his  class 
the  next  morning  he  met  Dr.  Woodrow  and  approached  him 
with  the  smile  and  air  of  one  who  was  conscious  of  having 
done  something  very  adroit,  and  said,  '''Well,  Doctor,  did  you 
burn  Servetus  last  night?"  "Yes,"  replied  the  doctor,  not 
changing  his  countenance  in  the  least,  ''and  without  any  assist- 
ance from  you."  Not  slackening  his  pace  or  otherwise  noticing 
the  student,  he  ascended  his  rostrum  and  called  the  class  to 
order. 

He  was  an  extremely  diffident  man,  and  he  overcame  his 
diffidence  by  a  prodigious  effort  of  the  will.  His  rigid  self- 
control,  combined  with  his  real  abhorrence  of  all  that  was  false, 
led  many  to  think  that  he  was  austere.  That  impression, 
however,  did  him  a  great  injustice.  He  was  really  a  man  of 
a  tender  heart.  Several  times  I  learned  by  accident  of  gracious 
charities  of  his.  so  quietly  done  that  his  left  hand  would  not 
know  the  deeds  of  his  right,  except  by  accident.  On  three 
memorable  occasions  I  saw  him  so  overcome  by  emotion  while 
speaking  in  public  that  he  could  not  proceed  with  his  speech. 
A  member  of  my  class  died  during  the  Seminary  term,  and 
before  the  body  was  removed  to  his  home,  a  little  funeral 
service  was  held  at  the  Seminary,  conducted  by  the  faculty.  In 


38 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


the  course  of  his  remarks  on  that  occasion  his  voice  broke,  and 
it  was  only  after  a  painful  pause  that  he  could  resume. 

Another  time  was  at  one  of  the  professors'  conferences,  held 
weekly  in  the  Seminary  chapel.  It  was  his  time  to  conduct 
the  meeting.  His  subject  was  the  "Righteousness  of  God." 
He  was  reading  brief  passages  from  different  parts  of  the  Bible 
bearing  on  the  subject  before  beginning  his  own  remarks.  As 
he  passed  from  one  passage  to  another  he  became  so  over- 
whelmed with  a  sense  of  the  righteousness  of  God  that  he  was 
unable  to  continue  the  reading.  He  simply  sat  down  in  silence 
and  signaled  to  the  professor  whose  speech  was  to  have  followed 
his  own  to  proceed.  There  was  a  pause,  and  we  thought  he 
was  ill.  Every  sort  of  attention  and  ministration  was  offered, 
but  kindly  and  quietly  declined.  It  was  several  days  before  the 
explanation  transpired.  The  third  occasion  was  his  speech  to 
my  class  at  graduation.  He  was  making  a  strong  and  tender 
address,  when  he  was  overcome  and  could  not  recover  for  a 
perceptible  time. 

Intense  and  tender  as  he  was,  naturally  his  home  life  was 
particularly  gentle  and  beautiful.  His  wife  was  his  co-laborer, 
in  enthusiastic  sympathy  with  his  ideals  and  his  work.  Without 
the  compromise  of  parental  dignity,  his  relations  with  his 
children  were  intimate  and  even  playful.  There  could  be  no 
finer  tribute  to  parents  and  child  than  the  brief  sentence  which 
appeared  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  upon  the  death  of  his 
son,  and  in  response  to  numerous  letters  of  condolence,  namely : 
"He  never  gave  us  one  heartache."  He  is  survived  by  his  wife 
and  three  children,  Mrs.  S.  I.  Woodbridge,  of  China;  Mrs. 
Melton  Clark,  of  Greensboro,  N.  C. ;  Miss  Marion  Woodrow, 
of  Columbia,  S.  C. ;  and  a  number  of  grandchildren. 

As  the  editor  and  proprietor  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian, 
he  rendered  most  valuable  service  to  the  Church.  He  pur- 
chased that  paper  and  began  the  publishing  of  it  within  a  few 
months  after  the  surrender.  He  hauled  the  printing  outfit 
from  Augusta,  Ga.,  to  Columbia,  S.  C,  on  a  cart,  he  himself 
walking  by  the  side  of  the  cart  and  driving  the  mule,  sometimes 
putting  his  own  shoulder  to  the  wheel  to  help  the  mule  in  rough 
places.  He  made  his  paper  a  power  for  righteousness  and 
truth.    The  first  page  was  always  devoted  to  selections,  and 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


3D 


those  selections  were  unique  for  excellence  of  matter  and  style. 
He  thus  placed  before  his  readers  every  week  a  large  page  of 
the  very  choicest  reading  matter  suitable  for  the  Sabbath  day. 
It  was  often  remarked  that  that  one  page  was  worth  the  whole 
price  of  the  subscription.  The  editorial  department  was 
conducted  with  the  ability  and  fearlessness  which  characterised 
the  man,  and  was  one  of  the  important  forces  that  determined 
the  attitude  of  the  Church  toward  every  question  that  arose. 
Dr.  Flinn  is  authority  for  the  statement  that  the  enterprise  never 
made  money,  but,  on  the  contrary,  was  a  drain  upon  his  other 
resources.  He  also,  for  many  years,  controlled  the  Southern 
Presbyterian  Review,  the  only  religious  magazine  in  our  Church 
at  that  time,  and  with  similar  results,  both  as  to  usefulness  to 
the  Church  and  personal  loss  to  himself. 

He  was  for  a  long  while  the  Treasurer  of  our  Foreign  Mis- 
sion and  Sustentation  work.  In  this  connexion  Dr.  Flinn  tells 
a  story  that  not  only  illustrates  the  high  character  of  Dr.  Wood- 
row  and  his  loyalty  and  value  to  the  Church,  but  is  deeply 
interesting  as  a  part  of  the  history  of  our  Church.  It  is  best 
told  in  Dr.  Flinn' s  own  words : 

"The  Foreign  Missions  Executive  Committee  decided  to 
deposit  with  Hoyt  &  Gardner,  in  New  York,  thousands  of 
dollars  of  the  Foreign  Missions  funds.  Dr.  Woodrow,  as 
treasurer,  opposed  and  protested.  The  measure  was  carried 
over  his  head.  Shortly  afterwards  Hoyt  &  Gardner  failed. 
Dr.  Woodrow  was  away  from  home.  His  wife  telegraphed 
him  about  the  failure,  advising  him  to  go  to  New  York  to  see 
what  could  be  done.  Cheques  on  Hoyt  &  Gardner,  amounting 
to  about  four  thousand  dollars,  had  been  mailed  to  pay  the 
current  salaries  of  missionaries  in  various  parts  of  the  world. 

"Dr.  Woodrow  went  to  Xew  York  and  arranged  with  another 
bank  to  make  good  these  cheques.  To  secure  this  bank  he 
mortgaged  his  home  in  Columbia  (corner  Sumter  and  Wash- 
ington streets ),  and  thus  saved  the  missionaries  sore  embarrass- 
ment and  the  Church  a  scandal. 

"The  Foreign  Missions  Committee  met  and  discussed  the 
situation.  Dr.  Woodrow  insisted  that  the  Church  must  not 
be  the  loser,  otherwise  it  would  create  scandal,  destroy  confi- 
dence, and  cripple  the  Church's  work;  besides,  honor  required 


40 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


that  the  immediate  agents  in  the  matter  should  be  responsible. 
He  himself  assumed  the  financial  loss.  The  committee  opposed, 
urging  that  the  loss  was  not  his  fault,  for  he  had  protested 
against  the  investment,  and  the  fault  lay  with  the  whole 
committee.  Dr.  Woodrow  stood  firm,  saying:  'No,  it  must  be 
done/  So  he  shouldered  the  burden  and  saved  his  Church  and 
her  agencies  from  trouble.  To  this  day  the  Church  has  never 
known  how  his  sense  of  honor  averted  heavy  loss  and  grievous 
heart-soreness/' 

In  the  courts  of  the  Church  Dr.  Woodrow  was  always  a 
power.  His  information  was  wide  and  accurate,  his  views 
were  clear,  his  convictions  intense,  and  he  was  remarkably 
ready  with  clear,  strong  statement.  These  qualifications  made 
him  always  a  leader. 

He  was  a  powerful  speaker.  That  he  was  so  came  largely 
from  self-culture — sacrifice,  painstaking,  persevering,  indom- 
itable. As  a  youth  he  was  extremely  bashful,  and  his  voice 
was  thin.  He  was  consequently  not  adapted  to  public  speaking. 
He  regarded  this  as  a  fault  rather  than  a  misfortune,  and 
determined  to  overcome  the  obstacle.  When  he  was  a  young 
teacher  in  Alabama  he  took  a  course  in  voice  culture  from  a 
teacher  in  Philadelphia.  The  lessons  thus  learned  he  practised 
in  his  strolls  through  the  woods  and  as  opportunity  otherwise 
came  to  him.  The  result  was  the  mastery  of  the  art  of  effective 
speaking.  The  effectiveness  of  his  speaking  did  not  rest  upon 
the  superficial  attractions  of  oratory.  There  were  no  graceful 
gestures,  no  impressive  poses,  no  practised  tones.  But  he 
inspired  one  with  confidence  in  his  honesty  of  mind,  his  love 
of  the  truth,  his  thorough  knowledge  of  his  subject.  His 
analysis  of  his  subject  was  lucid,  his  statements  clear,  and  his 
literary  style  a  model  of  simplicity  and  force.  He  never  spoke 
on  any  subject  without  being  fully  informed  upon  it.  At  the 
beginning  of  his  speech  his  voice  was  always  feeble  and  could 
scarcely  be  heard  at  all.  But  as  he  proceeded  his  voice  grew 
louder  and  clearer,  till  he  could  easily  be  heard  in  every  part 
of  the  building.  One  of  the  greatest  speeches  of  his  life  was 
the  one  he  made  before  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  at  Green- 
ville in  1884,  while  defending  his  position  in  the  evolution 
controversy.   A  college  professor  belonging  to  another  denom- 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


41 


ination,  who  heard  that  speech,  remarked  to  a  friend.  "I  have 
all  my  life  longed  to  hear  eloquence  that,  in  my  judgment,  was 
like  that  of  Demosthenes,  and  that  speech  has  fully  gratified 
my  desire." 

PART  III. 

EVOLUTION. 

There  was  one  thing  about  Dr.  YVoodrow's  famous  address 
on  Evolution  that  seems  to  me  to  illustrate  the  fearless  inde- 
pendence of  his  mind  more  than  anything  else,  though  I  have 
never  seen  it  mentioned.  It  was  his  avowal  of  a  belief  in  the 
immediate  creation  of  Eve.  By  his  adoption  of  any  form  of 
evolution  he  jeopardised  his  standing  with  the  orthodox 
ministry  of  the  Church,  and  by  his  excepting  Eve  from  the 
operation  of  the  supposed  law  of  evolution  he  would  probably 
forfeit  the  regard  of  the  evolutionists.  The  evolutionists  could 
tolerate  his  saying  that  he  felt  at  liberty  to  embrace  evolution 
because  he  did  not  think  the  Bible  forbade  it.  Provided  he 
accepted  their  theory  on  scientific  data,  they  would  not  care 
for  his  views  as  to  the  relation  of  that  theory  to  the  Bible.  But 
when  he  declared  that  the  evidence  from  nature  led  him  to 
believe  in  the  evolution  of  Adam  and  yet  he  would  not  include 
Eve,  because  the  Bible  account  of  her  creation  would  not  allow 
him  to  do  so,  he  could  expect  no  sympathy  from  that  direction. 
Yet  neither  the  prospect  of  ridicule  on  the  one  hand  nor  ecclesi- 
astical censure  on  the  other,  caused  him  to  deviate  a  hair's- 
breadth  from  the  exact  position  that  he  believed  to  be  correct. 

His  reverence  for  the  Scriptures  as  the  very  word  of  God 
was  the  most  absolute  and  profound  I  have  ever  encountered, 
and  I  am  indebted  to  him  more  than  to  any  other  person  for 
the  reverence  I  feel  for  the  Bible.  I  do  not  recall  that  I  ever 
knew  him  once  to  use  the  language  of  the  Bible  to  point  a  jest 
or  use  it  in  any  other  than  what  he  believed  to  be  the  intended 
sense.  Xor  do  I  recall  a  single  instance  of  his  even  smiling  at 
the  witticism  of  another  that  had  been  sharpened  by  some 
misapplication  of  Scripture  words.  Through  all  his  controversy 
on  evolution  he  stoutly  maintained  that  he  would  instantly 
abandon  the  theory  if  he  were  convinced  that  he  had  misinter- 
preted the  Bible  account  of  the  creation  of  man,  and  that  no 


42 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


amount  of  evidence  from  nature  would  weigh  with  him  as 
against  any  statement  of  the  Bible  which  he  believed  to 
contradict  it.  He  was  a  Christian  first  and  a  student  of  science 
afterwards.  He  believed,  as  he  said,  in  "the  absolute  inerrancy 
of  every  syllable"  of  the  Bible.  It  was,  therefore,  truly  like 
the  irony  of  events  that  when  such  a  man  was  called  to  contend 
so  mightily  for  his  standing  in  the  ministry,  it  should  have  been 
upon  a  question  involving  his  loyalty  to  the  inspired  word  as  the 
supreme  and  infallible  guide  in  religion.  He  was  tragically 
misunderstood  on  that  subject. 

The  impression  that  he  taught  evolution  in  Columbia  Semi- 
nary is  incorrect.  I  am  a  personal  witness  to  the  facts.  I 
received  as  his  student  the  most  advanced  views  he  ever  advo- 
cated before  any  Seminary  class.  I  was  a  member  of  the  very 
last  class  (the  class  of  1880)  before  which  he  discussed  the 
subject  in  any  of  its  aspects.  After  my  graduation  the  Semi- 
nary suspended  for  a  few  years.  After  it  was  reopened  he 
once  more  taught  there  for  some  months,  but  not  long  enough 
to  reach  this  subject.  As  a  member  of  that  last  class  he  ever 
addressed  on  the  subject,  I  bear  testimony  that  he  did  not  teach 
evolution.  He  stated  the  theory  and  gave  the  evidence  on 
which  it  was  supposed  to  rest.  He  declared,  however,  that  he 
regarded  the  evidence  as  insufficient  to  establish  the  theory,  and 
he  fully  explained  what  he  held  to  be  the  fatal  defect  in  the 
proof.  It  was  after  the  reopening  of  the  Seminary  and  before 
he  ever  again  lectured  to  his  classes  on  that  subject  that,  in 
response  to  a  request  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Seminary 
to  prepare  an  address  on  evolution,  he  carefully  reviewed  the 
whole  field  and  changed  his  opinion.  He  did  declare,  however, 
to  my  class  and  to  other  classes  for  years  before  mine  came  on, 
that  there  was  nothing  in  the  Bible,  rightly  interpreted,  to  forbid 
the  holding  of  some  form  of  evolution.  But  personally  he  did 
not  himself  embrace  it  at  that  time  in  any  form,  and  his  influ- 
ence was  against  it. 

Here  is  the  story  of  the  genesis  of  the  trouble.  In  the  year 
1859  Judge  Perkins,  of  Mississippi,  endowed  a  chair  in  Colum- 
bia Seminary  for  instruction  in  "Natural  Science  in  Connexion 
with  Revelation."  Dr.  Woodrow  was  elected  to  fill  that  chair. 
No  professorship  like  it  existed  in  any  institution  at  that  time, 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


43 


and  there  were  no  precedents  to  guide  him  in  the  conduct  of  the 
chair.  The  plan  of  instruction  adopted  by  him  was  to  discuss 
in  turn  each  of  the  various  scientific  theories  supposed  to  be  in 
conflict  with  the  teachings  of  the  Bible  and  to  consider  carefully 
its  relation  to  those  teachings.  The  age  of  the  earth,  the 
antiquity  of  man.  the  universality  of  the  flood,  and  evolution 
were  some  of  the  subjects  so  treated.  He  was  thus  led 
naturally,  even  necessarily,  to  canvass  evolution  with  his  pupils. 
The  germinal  principle  of  his  department,  out  of  which  all  his 
teachings  grew,  was  that  nature  and  the  Bible  are  from  the 
same  source — the  Omniscient,  the-  God  of  Truth — and.  there- 
fore, they  could  not  conflict  with  each  other,  and  if  there  seemed 
to  be  a  conflict  it  arose  from  a  wrong  interpretation  of  either 
nature  or  the  Bible.  It  was  his  custom  to  examine  before  the 
class  with  impartial  fairness  the  passages  of  Scripture  involved., 
giving  the  grammatical  construction  of  the  original,  applying 
rigidly  the  rules  of  Hermeneutics  approved  by  the  soundest  and 
ablest  expositors,  and  then  to  present  with  equal  impartiality 
the  facts  of  nature  bearing  on  the  subject.  Thus  the  true 
teachings  of  each  were  confronted  with  the  true  teachings  of  the 
other,  and  the  result  in  every  case  was  the  disappearance  of  the 
difficulty.  But  this  regnant  principle  was  never  for  an  instant 
lost  to  view,  that  if  the  difficulty  was  not  removed,  and  there 
still  seemed  to  be  conflict,  the  Bible  statement  must  be  accepted 
as  the  end  of  controversy,  because  the  Bible  was  given  for  the 
very  purpose  of  correcting  the  mistakes  of  reason. 

These  guiding  principles,  strongly  and  clearly  stated,  often 
repeated,  convincingly  and  charmingly  illustrated,  from  wide 
and  exact  learning,  had  the  most  wholesome  effect  on  his 
students.  Instances  are  known  of  young  men  who  were  rescued 
from  skepticism  by  his  teachings.  The  effect  on  the  majority 
of  his  students  was  to  set  their  minds  at  rest  forever  as  to  any 
possible  danger  to  their  faith  from  the  discoveries  of  science, 
and  also  to  eliminate  entirely  from  their  preaching  all  nervous, 
excited,  and  ill-informed  tirades  against  science.  The  student 
left  the  class-room  with  the  truth  rooted  in  his  soul  that  the 
object  of  the  Bible  was  to  reveal  to  men  the  way  to  salvation, 
and  that  the  commission  of  the  Christian  minister  was  to  learn 
the  meaning  of  the  Bible  and  to  preach  that,  and  nothing  else. 


44 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


There  was  a  solemn  sense  of  responsibility  to  "preach  the  word" 
without  fear  of  assault  and  without  misgiving  as  to  the  result. 
My  impression  is  that  a  majority  of  his  students  accepted  his 
interpretation  of  Genesis  2 :7,  namely,  (to  express  it  in  the 
language  of  the  Augusta  Assembly,  which  disapproved  his 
teachings)  that  the  passage  revealed  the  fact  of  God's  creating 
man,  but  not  the  inscrutable  mode.  But  if  a  single  one  of  his 
students  ever  embraced  his  scientific  theory  of  evolution,  I  have 
never  heard  of  it. 

The  act  of  the  Creator  by  which  he  imparted  to  Adam  those 
characteristics  which  distinguished  him  as  man  from  any 
possible  animal  parents  was,  in  Dr.  Woodrow's  view,  as  truly 
supernatural  and  divine,  was  as  typical  a  case  of  creation,  as 
that  by  which  matter  was  originally  brought  out  of  nothingness, 
or  that  by  which  a  soul  dead  in  sin  is  made  spiritually  alive  in 
regeneration.  He  was  no  materialist,  no  rationalist.  He 
believed  in  the  Trinity,  in  the  divine  creation  of  Adam,  in  the 
fall  of  man,  in  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  in  the 
vicarious  atonement  of  Christ,  in  regeneration  by  the  Spirit,  in 
justification  by  faith,  in  a  progressive  sanctification  by  the  word 
and  the  Spirit,  in  the  adoption  of  believers,  in  the  plenary 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  in  prayer,  in  the  eternal  duration 
of  rewards  and  punishments.  When  his  friend,  Dr.  J.  Leighton 
Wilson,  once  asked  him  what  book  of  theology  he  regarded  as 
the  best,  he  replied,  "The  Confession  of  Faith/'  He  was  to  the 
last  vehemently  unwilling  to  see  our  Church  enter  into  any 
alliance  with  other  Churches  whereby  our  testimony  to  this 
system  of  truth  might  be  endangered.  His  orthodoxy  was 
never  called  in  question  except  upon  one  point.  He  believed 
that  the  creation  of  Adam's  body  was  mediate,  and  not  immedi- 
ate, as  his  brethren  held.  As  we  now  teach  children  that  God 
created  them,  meaning  thereby  a  mediate  creation  through  the 
operation  of  second  causes,  in  the  same  sense  he  believed  in  the 
mediate  creation  of  Adam,  only  in  that  case  the  difference 
between  parent  and  offspring  was  greater.  In  two  recent  issues 
the  Central  Presbyterian  has  quoted  with  approval  this  remark 
of  Prof.  James  Orr,  of  Scotland:  "The  new  form  of  the 
doctrine  of  evolution  now  growing  up  will  be  in  perfect  accord 
with  the  most  orthodox  Christianity."    It  is  hard  to  see  how 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


45 


any  theory  of  the  evolution  of  man  can  come  nearer  being  in 
accord  with  orthodox  Christianity  than  that  form  held  by  Dr. 
Woodrow. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  follow  the  serpentine  windings  of  the 
long-drawn-out  judicial  case  which  ended  in  the  Assembly's 
disapproval  of  his  views,  but  leaving  his  ecclesiastical  standing 
intact.  And  I  would  be  greatly  disappointed  if  anything  I 
have  written  should  revive,  even  slightly,  any  of  the  bitterness 
of  those  days.  It  is  enough  to  say  that  in  the  whole  history  of 
the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church  there  has  never  been  a  ques- 
tion that  so  thoroughly  aroused  the  entire  membership  as  the 
Evolution  controversy  did.  Every  one  who  read  the  Church 
papers  at  all  was  excited  about  it  and  deeply  concerned  for  the 
result.  Yet  within  twenty-three  years  the  excitement  has  com- 
pletely subsided.  Within  five  years  of  the  close  of  the 
controversy  one  of  the  most  conspicuous  and  one  of  the  ablest 
of  Dr.  Woodrow's  defenders  was  elected  moderator  of  the 
General  Assembly.  He  was  the  youngest  man  who  ever  filled 
that  chair.  In  a  very  few  years  more  we  see  Dr.  Woodrow 
himself  a  member  of  various  Assemblies,  the  chairman  of  most 
important  committees,  and  a  respected  and  honored  leader  as 
of  yore.  Eater  still,  he  is  enthusiastically  elected  moderator 
of  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina,  where  the  controversy  had 
raged  the  fiercest.  And  in  the  last  few  months  of  his  life  the 
Board  of  Directors  of  Columbia  Seminary  expunged  from  its 
records  every  entry  reflecting  upon  him. 

A  few  months  before  his  death  I  called  to  see  him.  He  was 
ill,  and  a  long  examination  by  consulting  physicians  had  left 
him  prostrated.  That  illness  was  the  beginning  of  the  end. 
No  doubt  his  heart  had  already  heard  the  last  call.  His  hair 
had  become  snow  white,  and  as  it  lay  spread  out  about  his 
head  on  the  pillow,  it  reminded  me  of  the  words  of  Proverbs, 
"The  hoary  head  is  a  crown  of  glory,  if  it  be  found  in  the  way 
of  righteousness."  With  heart  and  conscience  fully  adjusted 
to  the  other  world,  he  had  nevertheless  relaxed  none  of  his 
grasp  on  the  interests  and  responsibilities  of  the  earthly 
stewardship.  He  responded  heartily  to  every  personal  sug- 
gestion and  at  every  mention  of  the  questions  agitating  the 
Church  he  had  so  long  served  so  lovingly,  so  laboriously,  so 


4G 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


courageously,  his  eye  kindled  and  the  energy  of  his  speech  and 
gesture  suggested  one  that  girded  on  the  harness  rather  than 
one  ready  to  put  it  off.  As  I  recall  the  scene  in  connexion  with 
his  death,  which  followed  not  long  after,  I  think  of  Mont- 
gomery's lines : 

"Servant  of  God,  well  done ! 

Rest  from  thy  loved  employ; 
The  battle  fought,  the  victory  won, 
Enter  thy  Master's  joy." 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


47 


Dr.  Woodrow  and  the  "Silence  of  Scripture." 


An  Article,  with  Additions,  which  Appeared  in  the 
Central  Presbyterian. 


BY  THE  REV.  DR.  E.  M.  GREEN. 

It  was  often  said  during  the  Evolution  controversy  that  Dr. 
Woodrow  would  never  be  understood  or  appreciated  while  he 
lived.  Personal  feeling  and  prejudice  entered  so  largely  into 
the  discussions  and  influenced  so  powerfully  the  judgment  of 
many,  that  time  had  to  be  allowed  for  these  to  pass  away.  Dr. 
Woodrow  is  now  dead.  Time  has  produced  the  effect  that  was 
anticipated.  Asperities  have  been  softened,  animosities  have 
been  forgotten,  prejudices  have  died  out,  and  those  who  knew 
and  admired  and  loved  him  can  now  speak  without  awakening 
antagonism,  and  will  be  listened  to  when  they  tell  what  manner 
of  man  he  was,  and  what  his  real  opinions  and  teachings.  Such 
splendid  tributes  to  his  memory  as  that  which  Dr.  Flinn  has 
given,  and  such  temperate  and  judicious  articles  as  those  Dr. 
Fraser  has  recently  been  giving  through  the  columns  of  The 
Central  Presbyterian,  ought  to  do  much  to  place  his  life  and 
character  and  teachings  in  their  true  light  before  the  Church 
and  the  world. 

Those  who  are  familiar  with  the  controversy  referred  to  will 
bear  witness  that  Dr.  Woodrow's  purpose  throughout  the 
whole  discussion  was  not  to  establish  any  hypothesis  of  evolu- 
tion— as  to  this  he  was  indifferent — but  it  was  to  prove  the 
silence  of  Scripture  respecting  the  mode  of  the  creation  of 
Adam's  body.  This  he  regarded  as  vital.  But  why  did  he 
make  so  much  of  this?  Why  did  he  think  it  so  important  to 
establish  the  fact  that  on  this  point  the  Scriptures  are  silent? 
As  this  was  the  subject  of  many  conversations  between  us,  I 
can  give  the  matter  as  it  lay  in  his  own  mind.  He  was  inti- 
mately associated  with  the  scientists  of  his  day.  Many  of 
these  eminent  men,  whose  names  were  known  over  the  civilised 
world,  he  counted  as  his  personal  friends ;  he  knew  and  loved 
them ;  he  respected  them  as  earnest  searchers  after  truth, 
and,  as  a  Christian,  he  felt  deep  concern  that  they  should 


48 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODEOW. 


believe  as  he  did  in  divine  revelation.  But  many  of  them 
rejected  the  Bible  because  of  the  false  interpretations  put  on  its 
teachings.  In  regard  to  the  creation  they  were  told  that  the 
earth  and  all  that  is  therein,  together  with  the  heavens  above, 
were  made  of  nothing,  in  the  space  of  six  natural  days,  and 
only  about  six  thousand  years  ago.  They  reasoned  that  the 
Church  ought  to  know  what  the  Bible  teaches.  The  ministers 
of  the  word  are,  many  of  them,  scholars  of  acknowledged 
learning  and  ability,  who  make  a  special  study  of  Scripture, 
and  are  experts  in  its  interpretation.  Hence  they  accepted 
as  authoritative  these  statements  of  theirs  as  to  its  teachings. 
But  this  account  of  the  creation  being  inconsistent  with  the 
facts  established  beyond  doubt  by  their  studies  and  investiga- 
tions, they  naturally  discredited  the  whole  Bible,  which  thus 
began  in  palpable  error.  The  Church  has  at  last  learned  that 
the  error  was  hers,  and  that  the  Bible  does  not  say  what  it 
was  supposed  to  say.  Scientific  men  are  satisfied  with  the 
present  accepted  interpretation  of  the  Mosaic  account  of  crea- 
tion ;  but  much  harm  was  done  by  the  mistaken  view  of  what 
the  Bible  really  taught. 

And  now,  in  regard  to  the  formation  of  man's  body:  why 
should  we  try  to  commit  the  Bible  to  a  certain  mode  of  crea- 
tion, when  as  to  the  mode  it  is  silent?  In  doing  so,  do  we 
not  oppose  a  needless  difficulty  in  the  way  of  those  who  have 
been  led  to  think  differently  from  ourselves?  The  silence  of 
Scripture  is  sometimes  as  significant  as  its  speech;  and  to 
make  the  Bible  say  what  it  does  not  say,  may  be  to  make 
infidels.  Where  it  is  silent  we  should  be  silent,  and  it  certainly 
is  silent  as  to  the  mode  of  the  creation  of  Adam's  body.  The 
Lord  formed  it  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  but  by  what 
process  or  in  what  length  of  time  we  are  not  told.  We  may 
be  right  in  thinking  that  it  was  formed  "directly"  from  the 
dust,  but  the  Bible  does  not  say  so,  and  others  have  the  same 
right  to  their  opinions  in  the  matter  that  we  have.  Nor  does 
it  much  matter  how  Adam's  body  was  made  out  of  the  dust; 
he  was  not  man  till  God  breathed  into  him  the  breath  of  life, 
and  he  became  a  living  soul. 

Dr.  Woodrow's  object  was  not  to  interpret  the  Bible  accord- 
ing to  the  teachings  of  science.    His  sole  purpose  was  to  find 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES, 


49 


the  true  meaning  of  Scripture,  knowing  that  there  would 
be  no  conflict  between  this  and  a  true  interpretation  of  the 
facts  of  science  :  and  this  would  remove  the  great  difficulty  in 
the  way  of  his  many  friends  among  the  students  of  science 
accepting  the  truth  of  that  divine  revelation  which  he  believed 
with  all  his  soul. 

His  famous  reply  to  Dr.  Dabney's  ''Assault  on  Physical 
Science."  published  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Review  of 
July,  1873,  was  printed  in  pamphlet  form  and  widely  distrib- 
uted among  his  friends  in  Europe  and  America.  At  that  time 
the  business  management  of  the  Review  and  of  the  Southern 
Presbyterian,  of  which  he  was  proprietor,  was  in  my  hands, 
and  we  were  intimately  associated.  Taking  me  into  his  confi- 
dence, he  read  me  numerous  letters  from  various  parts  of  the 
world,  written  in  German.  French,  and  other  languages  (which 
he  translated  for  my  benefit),  from  eminent  scientists,  express- 
ing their  indebtedness  to  him  for  his  luminous  exposition  of 
the  relations  between  Revelation  and  Natural  Science.  And 
when  the  address  on  Evolution  was  published,  which  became 
the  subject  of  controversy,  nothing  gratified  him  so  much  as 
the  assurances  he  received  from  many  of  its  having  helped 
them  to  clearer  views  of  the  truth  and  stronger  faith  in  the 
word  of  God.  One  of  these  was  a  pronounced  infidel,  who  had 
been  active  in  assailing  the  Bible  from  the  scientific  point  of 
view,  but  who  surrendered  his  opposition  and  became  a  believer 
in  divine  revelation;  and  another,  a  judge  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  South  Carolina,  whose  difficulties  had  all  been 
removed  by  reading  the  address,  and  who,  consequently,  became 
a  believer  and  a  Christian. 

Dr.  Fraser  refers  to  Prof.  Woodrow's  fearless  independence 
of  mind  in  favoring  the  hypothesis  of  the  formation  of  Adam's 
body  by  process  of  evolution,  yet  not  admitting  the  forma- 
tion of  Eve's  body  by  a  similar  process,  because  the  Bible 
account  of  her  creation  would  not  allow  him  to  do  so.  This  was 
a  seeming  inconsistency  for  which  he  has  been  much  criti- 
cised. But  he  was  first  loyal  to  Scripture,  and,  secondly,  loyal 
to  science  as  he  understood  it.  In  private  conversation  he 
gave  me  this  illustration :  Had  he  been  in  Galilee  in  the  early 
days  of  Christ's  ministry  and  been  asked  in  respect  to  two 


4— w 


50 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


glasses  of  wine  on  the  table  before  him,  whence  they  originated, 
his  reply  would  have  been  that  the  wine  in  both  glasses  had 
been  made  in  the  usual  method  from  the  juice  of  the  grape. 
If  the  reply  had  been,  "No,  this  glass  of  wine  is  some  of  that 
which  was  made  by  Jesus  last  night,  at  the  marriage  in  Cana," 
then  he  would  have  said,  "If  you  certainly  know  that  to  be  a 
fact,  I  will  admit  that  this  glass  was  so  made;  but  as  to  the 
other  glass,  I  must  believe  that  it  was  made  by  the  usual 
method,  unless  you  can  assure  me  to  the  contrary/'  The 
Scriptures  tell  us  that  Eve  was  formed  from  the  body  of 
Adam.  That  is  authoritative,  and  settles  the  matter  as  to  her 
body.  But  as  the  Scriptures  are  silent  respecting  the  mode 
by  which  Adam's  body  was  formed,  we  must  believe  that  it 
was  by  the  usual  process  of  development  which  we  see  in 
everything  else.  This  was  his  manner  of  reasoning.  It  was 
probably  not  satisfactory  to  his  fellow-scientists,  nor  any  more 
so  to  his  fellow-religionists;  but  he  thought  for  himself,  and 
took  all  the  consequences. 

The  General  Assembly  of  1888  gave  its  judgment  that 
"Adam's  body  was  directly  fashioned  by  Almighty  God  of  the 
dust  of  the  ground,"  and  this  ended  the  controversy.  Had  the 
word  "directly,"  for  which  no  proof  text  was  cited,  been 
omitted,  the  decision  would  have  been  concurred  in  unani- 
mously. That  the  Creator  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground,  the  Scriptures  plainly  enough  declare.  If  the  scientists 
can  discover  the  mode  by  which  it  was  done,  they  are  free  to 
do  so. 

Dr.  Woodrow  was  profoundly  loyal  to  the  Sacred  Scriptures, 
and  he  accepted  every  word  of  the  Bible,  from  beginning  to  end, 
as  the  inspired  word  of  God.  I  have  often  heard  him  say  that 
to  his  mind  nothing  was  so  fully  and  satisfactorily  proven  as 
the  truth  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  that  he  could  not  for 
a  moment  accept  anything  as  true  which  contradicted  the  divine 
word.  If  science,  philosophy,  or  human  reason  declared  any- 
thing contrary  to  Scripture,  it  proved  that  they  and  not  the 
Scriptures  were  in  error. 

The  love  of  truth  was  ingrained  into  the  very  fibre  of  his 
character,  and  he  could  tolerate  nothing  that  was  not  perfectly 
genuine  and  true.    When  the  present  writer  was  a  student  in 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


51 


college,  riding  one  day  with  the  young  professor  near  a  large 
public  building  then  in  course  of  construction,  some  remark 
was  made  as  to  its  beauty  and  magnificence.  His  reply  was 
that  he  could  not  altogether  admire  it,  for  while  it  was  an 
imposing  structure  it  was  a  practical  lie.  Explaining  his 
meaning,  he  said  that  it  was  built  of  brick,  as  all  knew,  yet  it 
was  stuccoed  and  marked  in  squares  to  imitate  brown  stone. 
The  building  would  have  been  more  pleasing  to  him  if  the 
plain  brick  had  shown. 

This  was  an  index  to  his  mind  and  character. 

When  his  address  on  Evolution  was  published  and  a  storm 
of  criticism  had  been  aroused,  a  friend  suggested  that  as  Evolu- 
tion was  a  hypothesis  only,  and  could  neither  be  proven  nor 
disproven,  he  might  have  stated  the  theory  without  positively 
committing  himself  to  it,  and  so  escaped  censure.  His  answer 
was  that  he  had  been  asked  to  give  his  views,  and  he  could  not 
do  otherwise  than  honestly  give  his  views.  He  knew  nothing 
of  the  art  of  evasion.  He  had  always  the  courage  of  his  con- 
victions, and  accepted  the  responsibility  of  his  opinions.  After 
the  storm  had  passed  and  the  trouble  was  all  over,  he  said 
that  the  Evolution  controversy  had  been  a  costly  one  to  the 
Church  and  to  himself  personally,  but  that  it  was  worth  all 
it  had  cost,  that  it  had  been  educational,  the  ministry  of  the 
Church  had  been  lifted  to  broader  and  more  intelligent  views, 
and  it  was  impossible  that  such  a  controversy  should  ever  again 
occur  in  our  Church. 


52 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


An  Account  Adapted  from  Those  Appearing  in  Phi 
Gamma  Delta,  1898,  and  The  Garnet 
and  Black,  1899. 


In  the  old  historic  city  of  Carlisle,  England,  within  six  miles 
of  the  Scottish  border,  James  Woodrow  was  born  May  30, 
1828.  His  father,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Thomas  Woodrow,  a  native 
of  Paisley,  Scotland,  and  an  A.  M.  of  the  Glasgow  University, 
married  a  lady  of  Glasgow,  the  daughter  of  a  deacon  in  Dr. 
Ralph  Wardlaw's  church.  Thomas  Woodrow  was  at  first  a 
minister  of  the  Established  Church  of  Scotland  (Presbyterian). 
Not  approving  the  connexion  between  Church  and  State,  he 
severed  his  relationship  with  the  Kirk,  and  became  pastor  of 
an  independent  church  at  Carlisle.  When  James  Woodrow 
was  eight  years  old,  his  parents  removed  to  America,  in  1836, 
settling  at  first  in  Canada,  but  subsequently  coming  to  the 
United  States  in  May,  1837.  The  father  became  pastor  of  the 
First  Presbyterian  church  at  Chillicothe,  Ohio,  and  this  was  his 
home  for  some  time. 

Young  James  was  taught  at  home  chiefly,  by  his  father, 
attending  school  a  while  at  Brockville,  Canada,  and  Chillicothe 
and  Athens,  Ohio.  He  entered  Jefferson  College  at  Cannons- 
burg,  Pa.,  in  1846.  Here  he  was  known  as  a  quiet  and  retiring 
man  and  a  close  student,  and  on  his  graduation  in  1849,  he 
received  the  first  honor  in  an  exceptionally  large  and  able 
class.  Upon  leaving  college,  he  taught  school  for  two  years  in 
Alabama,  and  in  1853  he  spent  part  of  his  vacation  in  study  at 
the  Lawrence  Scientific  School  of  Harvard  University. 

In  January,  1853,  he  was  elected  Professor  of  Natural 
Science  in  Oglethorpe  University,  Georgia,  a  position  he 
retained  until  January  1,  1861.  While  a  Professor  at  Ogle- 
thorpe, he  engaged  in  mission  work  among  the  feeble  churches 
near  Milledgeville,  and  being  convinced  that  it  was  his  duty  to 
preach  regularly  to  them,  he  took  up  privately  the  full  course 
of  (theological  study  required,  including  Hebrew,  and  was 
licensed  and  afterward  ordained  to  the  ministry  at  Milledge- 
ville, Ga.,  in  the  spring  of  1859.    He  was  not  ordained  as  a 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


53 


minister  to  qualify  himself  for  a  theological  professorship,  but 
in  order  to  "preach  the  gospel  to  the  poor." 

In  1855-56,  he  was  studying  in  Germany,  and  took  the  degree 
Ph.  D.,  summa  cum  laude,  at  Heidelberg,  March  6,  1856.  The 
day  he  graduated  he  was  offered  a  full  professorship  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Heidelberg,  he  being  only  twenty-seven  years  of 
age.  However,  he  desired  to  return  to  America,  and  the 
following  year  (1857)  he  was  married  to  Miss  F.  S.  Baker, 
daughter  of  Rev.  J.  W.  Baker,  of  Marietta,  Ga.,  and  from  this 
union  four  children  grew  up. 

In  November,  1860,  he  was  elected  to  the  "Perkins  Profes- 
sorship of  Natural  Science  in  Connexion  with  Revelation,"  in 
the  Presbyterian  Theological  Seminary  at  Columbia,  S.  C, 
and  entered  on  his  duties  January  1,  1861.  For  a  time  the 
Civil  War  interrupted  the  exercises  of  the  Seminary;  but  Dr. 
Woodrow  continued  his  studies,  and  was  very  active  in  the 
service  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church,  and  from  1861 
to  1872  he  was  Treasurer  of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Missions. 
He  also  rendered  valuable  services  to  the  Confederacy,  of 
which  he  was  an  ardent  supporter. 

The  South  Carolina  College,  too,  claimed  Dr.  Woodrow's 
services,  and  from  1869  to  1872  he  taught  Chemistry  and 
Geology  in  that  institution.  Many  of  his  theological  students 
attended  his  college  lectures  also.  Moreover,  in  1865  he  became 
editor  and  proprietor  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian,  which 
position  he  retained  until  1893.  The  Southern  Presbyterian 
Review  was  also  owned  and  published  by  him  from  1861  until 
1885,  and  much  of  the  editorial  work  connected  with  it  devolved 
upon  him. 

Under  this  accumulation  of  duties,  and  with  his  intense 
application  to  work  so  varied  and  so  responsible,  it  is  little 
wonder  that  his  health,  never  robust,  was  about  to  give  way. 
In  1872,  he  went  to  Europe  with  his  family,  and  remained 
there  until  1874,  revisiting  America,  however,  on  several  occas- 
ions. While  there  he  spent  much  time  in  travelling  over 
regions  most  interesting  to  geologists,  and  in  making  personal 
inspection  of  remarkable  formations,  and  otherwise  adding  to 
his  store  of  learning  upon  this  subject.  It  was  during  this 
period  that  Dr.  Woodrow,  on  one  of  his  excursions  near  Dres- 


54 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


den,  Saxony,  discovered  a  most  important  fossil  {Catamites 
gigas)  for  which  many  noted  geologists  had  been  long  search- 
ing. Its  importance  is  due  to  the  fact  that  its  presence  deter- 
mined the  age  of  the  layer  of  rock  in  which  it  was  found, 
geologists  not  having  been  able  to  classify  that  and  other  similar 
layers  before  this  fossil  was  found. 

After  his  return  from  Europe  in  1874  Dr.  Woodrow  took  up 
his  work  once  more  with  renewed  energy.  He  was  often 
called  upon  for  ecclesiastical  duties,  being  sent  as  commissioner 
to  many  meetings  of  the  General  Assembly,  besides  his  attend- 
ance on  Synod  and  at  important  meetings  of  Presbytery. 

On  the  7th  day  of  May,  1884,  at  a  meeting  of  the  Alumni 
Association  of  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Columbia,  Dr. 
Woodrow  delivered,  by  request  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of 
the  Seminary,  an  address  on  Evolution  which  produced  unusual 
excitement  and  discussion  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The 
position  taken  by  Dr.  Woodrow  was  that  Evolution  in  some 
form  is  probably  true;  that  it  applies  probably  to  the  body  of 
man,  but  not  to  his  soul ;  and  that  it  may  be  recognised  as 
"God's  plan  of  Creation"  without  interfering  with  a  theistic  and 
Christian  belief.  The  controversy  that  followed  agitated  the 
Church  for  years.  A  perfect  flood  of  newspaper  and  review 
articles  was  poured  forth,  and  the  discussion  resulted  in  oust- 
ing Dr.  Woodrow  from  his  chair  in  the  Seminary,  the  with- 
drawal of  two  professors — his  colleagues  and  sympathisers — a 
complete  change  in  the  Board  of  Directors,  and  the  temporary 
closing  of  the  Seminary.  The  Perkins  Professor  was  tempo- 
rarily re-instated,  and  ceased  to  act  as  Professor  in  May,  1886. 

From  1880  to  1891,  he  was  Professor  in  the  South  Carolina 
University,  occupying  the  chair  of  Geology  and  Mineralogy, 
and  from  time  to  time  filling  also  the  chairs  of  Botany,  Zoology, 
Physiology,  Astronomy,  and  Natural  Philosophy. 

In  1891,  in  the  reorganisation  of  the  University,  he  was 
elected  President  of  the  South  Carolina  College,  still  retaining 
his  chair  of  Geology.  His  long  experience  as  an  educator,  his 
high  character  as  a  Christian  gentleman,  his  abilities  as  a  finan- 
cier, and  his  attractive  manner  towards  young  men,  fitted  him 
admirably  for  this  important  position. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES 


55 


In  June,  189 7,  Dr.  Woodrow  resigned  the  Presidency  and 
his  Professorship  in  the  South  Carolina  College,  with  the 
intention  of  retiring  to  private  life.  In  the  summer  of  the  same 
year  he  attended  the  International  Geological  Congress  at  St. 
Petersburg.  While  in  Russia  he  and  his  fellow-members  were 
the  guests  of  the  Czar  of  Russia,  which  means,  among  other 
things,  that  all  their  travelling  expenses  were  paid  by  the 
Government  during  their  entire  stay  on  Russian  territory. 
On  account  of  his  ability  and  excellent  business  qualities,  he 
was,  on  his  return  from  Europe,  made  President  of  the  Cen- 
tral National  Bank  in  Columbia,  which  position  he  held  until 
1901. 

Besides  his  degree  of  Ph.  D.  from  Heidelberg,  Dr.  Woodrow 
was  made  an  M.  D.  by  the  Georgia  Medical  College,  at 
Augusta,  Ga. ;  a  D.  D.  by  Hampden-Sidney  College,  Virginia ; 
an  LL.  D.  by  Davidson  College ;  and  a  J.  U.  D.  by  Washington 
and  Jefferson  College.  He  was  a  member  of  the  German 
Scientific  Association ;  the  Swiss  Scientific  Association ;  the 
Isis,  of  Dresden,  Saxony;  the  Victoria  Institute,  of  London; 
Fellow  of  the  .American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of 
Science;  and  a  member  of  the  International  Congress  of 
Geologists. 

Dr.  Woodrow" s  mind  was  eminently  clear,  logical,  judicially 
balanced,  and  scientifically  impartial.  Never  dogmatic  on  open 
questions,  and  never  insisting  on  an  opinion  being  received 
on  personal  authority,  he  was  candid,  positive,  and  outspoken 
on  matters,  scientific  or  religious,  on  which  his  mind  was 
settled.  His  style  of  address  was  simple,  quiet,  and  perspicu- 
ous, rising  at  times  to  intensity  and  strong  but  restrained 
emotion,  when  the  whole  man  was  roused  to  a  defence  of 
what  he  esteemed  truth. 

When  Dr.  Woodrow  spoke  as  a  scientist,  it  was  as  one  who 
knew — not  the  whole  subject,  for  no  scientific  man  would 
claim  that — but  the  best  and  freshest  thought  upon  it,  with 
the  reasons  therefor.  When  he  spoke  as  a  religious  teacher, 
it  was  as  one  who  heartily  and  loyally  believed  in  the  divine 
authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  who  esteemed  them  as 
the  most  precious  heritage  of  mankind. 


56 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Personal  Reminiscences. 


BY  THE)  REV.  DR.  THOMAS  H.  LAW. 

I  began  my  course  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Columbia, 
S.  C,  in  October,  1859.  Among  my  intimate  associates  and 
classmates  there,  were  a  number  of  the  graduates  of  Ogle- 
thorpe University,  then  located  at  Milledgeville,  Ga.  One 
evening  as  we  had  gathered  at  our  boarding  house  for  supper, 
some  one  who  had  received  a  letter  or  local  paper  from  Mil- 
ledgeville, reported  that  Professor  Woodrow  of  the  University 
had  been  ordained  to  the  ministry  by  Hopewell  Presbytery, 
and  there  was  at  once  a  deeply  interested  discussion  of  the 
matter  by  his  former  students.  And  as  indicative  of  the  high 
appreciation  of  his  character  and  learning,  the  remark  was 
made:  "Well,  I  would  like  to  have  heard  his  examination!" 
Having  myself  been  educated  entirely  in  South  Carolina,  this 
was  the  first  time  that  I  ever  heard  of  the  talented  and  dis- 
tinguished young  professor  at  Oglethorpe,  who,  as  I  observed, 
had  made  so  profound  an  impression  upon  those  who  had 
fallen  under  his  instruction  and  influence  there. 

Professor  in  the  Columbia  Theological  Seminary.* 

At  the  beginning  of  that  same  year,  the  Seminary  had  received 
a  handsome  donation  from  Judge  Perkins  of  Mississippi,  to 
endow  a  chair  of  "Natural  Science  in  Connexion  with  Revela- 
tion." The  duty  of  selecting  a  professor  to  fill  this  new  chair 
fell  upon  the  Synod  of  Georgia,  according  to  the  rule  then  in 
force — the  controlling  Synods  electing  professors  in  turn.  Much 
interest  was  felt  in  the  choice,  especially  as  this  marked  a  new 

*In  this  account  of  the  establishment  of  the  Perkins  Professorship  and 
of  the  election  of  Dr.  Woodrow  to  fill  the  new  chair,  Dr.  Law  omits  a  few 
facts  which  are  necessary  to  make  the  account  complete. 

The  fund  donated  by  Judge  Perkins  became  available  in  January, 
1859.  Not  long  afterwards  Judge  Perkins  announced  his  intention  of 
adding  several  thousand  dollars  to  the  fund,  provided  his  friend  and 
pastor,  the  Rev.  Dr.  James  A.  Lyon,  were  elected  to  fill  the  new  chair 
to  be  established.  The  Faculty  of  Columbia  Seminary  was  naturally- 
very  much  interested  in  the  whole  matter,  and  also  naturally  wished  to 
see  Dr.  Lyon  elected.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Howe  was  sent  as  the  Faculty's 
representative  to  the  Synod  of  Georgia  at  its  meeting  in  1859,  to  urge 
the  election  of  Dr.  Lyon.  But  he  found  the  Synod  had  already 
(unofficially)  decided  to  elect  Dr.  Woodrow.  Thereupon  he  exerted  all 
his  energy  to  have  the  election  postponed  for  a  year,  and  in  this  he 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


57 


departure  in  theological  education.  And,  after  careful  consid- 
eration of  the  whole  matter,  it  was  the  judgment  of  the 
Seminary  faculty,  consisting  then  of  Drs.  Howe,  Leland, 
Thornwell,  and  Adger,  that  Rev.  Dr.  James  A.  Lyon,  the  pastor 
of  Judge  Perkins  at  Columbus,  Miss.,  under  whose  advice  and 
counsel  his  distinguished  and  generous  parishioner  had  been  led 
to  make  the  liberal  donation,  was  the  most  suitable  man  to 
inaugurate  this  new  line  of  theological  study  and  instruction. 
To  advocate  these  views  of  the  faculty,  Dr.  Thornwell  who  had 
entered  very  heartily  into  the  whole  scheme,  was  sent  as  a  spe- 
cial commissioner  to  the  Synod  of  Georgia.  In  discharging  this 
commission,  Dr.  Thornwell,  who  had  spent  the  previous  sum- 
mer in  Europe  and  had  visited  Heidelberg  University  in  which 
Dr.  Woodrow  had  taken  his  degree  some  years  before,  took 
occasion  to  speak  most  warmly  of  the  splendid  reputation  which 
the  young  Oglethorpe  professor  had  left  behind  him  there,  and 
how  his  praises  were  still  on  the  lips  of  many;  but  notwith- 
standing, (he  urged)  in  the  deliberate  judgment  of  the  faculty 
and  other  friends  of  the  Seminary  at  Columbia,  the  distin- 
guished Mississippian  should  be  chosen  to  this  new  chair.  The 
Synod,  however,  knowing  its  man,  would  have  none  other  than 
Dr.  James  Woodrow,  and  promptly  elected  him  to  be  the 
first  incumbent  of  the  Perkins  professorship,  which  selection 
the  other  controlling  Synods,  South  Carolina  and  Alabama, 
cheerfully  confirmed. 

As  thus  elected  by  his  own  Synod,  the  following  January  Dr. 
Woodrow  removed  to  Columbia  and  entered  upon  the  duties 
of  his  new  and  responsible  office  as  Perkins  Professor  in  the 
Theological  Seminary. 

succeeded.  Thinking  that  if  Dr.  Howe  could  succeed  in  having  the 
election  postponed,  even  though  the  Synod  was  not  only  ready  but  eager 
to  proceed  with  the  business,  Dr.  Thornwell  would  be  able  to  persuade 
it  to  elect  Dr.  Lyon,  the  Faculty  sent  him  as  its  special  commissioner 
to  the  meeting  of  the  Synod  in  1860.  Dr.  Law  tells  us  with  what  success 
he  met. 

It  must  not  be  thought  from  the  above  that  the  members  of  the  Faculty 
were  opposed  to  Dr.  Woodrow.  I  think  none  of  them  had  a  personal 
acquaintance  with  him  at  that  time.  But  it  was  natural  that  they  should 
try  to  have  Judge  Perkins's  plans  carried  out  fully.  It  is  pleasant  to 
be  able  to  add  that  though  at  first  Judge  Perkins  was  very  much  dis- 
appointed at  the  result  of  the  election,  he  not  only  was  fully  reconciled 
to  it  after  making  Dr.  Woodrow's  acquaintance,  but  became  very  fond 
of  him  personally. — Editor. 


58 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


I  well  recollect  his  first  appearance  there.  He  was  then 
thirty-two  years  of  age;  tall,  slender,  clean  shaven,  wearing 
spectacles;  with  thick,  dark  hair,  rather  long;  somewhat 
stooped  in  figure;  a  little  awkward  in  manner,  and  somewhat 
hesitating  in  speech  when  he  spoke  in  the  pulpit  or  class-room. 

According  to  the  special  arrangements  provided  for  his  new 
chair,  he  was  limited  in  his  teaching  to  lectures  and  allowed 
only  two  hours  per  week.  Under  these  restrictions,  he  had 
not  a  fair  opportunity  at  that  time,  as  compared  with  the  other 
professors,  to  impress  himself  upon  the  students.  But  he  at 
once  commanded  their  profound  respect  and  secured  their 
warm  affection ;  and  of  the  manner  in  which  he  met  his  obliga- 
tions and  fulfilled  his  commission,  others  have  already  freely 
spoken. 

What  impressed  me  particularly  in  this  first  acquaintance 
with  Dr.  Woodrow  was  his  attractive  personality,  and  espec- 
ially his  charm  as  a  conversationalist.  I  soon  became  very 
fond  of  him,  and  frequently  visited  him  at  his  home,  where  I 
greatly  enjoyed  and  profited  by  his  conversation.  He  had  the 
happy  art  of  bringing  himself  into  close  personal  touch  with 
his  associates,  and  he  was  the  most  widely  and  accurately 
informed  man  with  whom  I  ever  had -the  privilege  of  fellowship. 
So,  in  conversation,  without  any  spirit  or  appearance  of  patron- 
ising, he  entered  quickly  into  the  personal  interests  of  his  com- 
panion, got  a  knowledge  of  his  family,  of  his  life,  of  his  views, 
of  anything  that  specially  interested  him,  and  seemed  never 
to  forget  these  things,  and  would  frequently  recur  to  them 
afterwards.  And  then,  he  would  lead  on  the  conversation  from 
topic  to  topic,  so  that  it  never  lagged ;  and  the  hours  spent  in  his 
company  were  always  full  of  interest  and  pleasure.  I  may  add 
that  these  early  impressions  never  changed ;  to  the  last,  when- 
ever I  was  in  Columbia  and  had  the  opportunity,  I  esteemed 
it  a  special  privilege  and  joy  to  drop  in  and  have  an  hour's 
delightful  chat  with  my  cherished  friend  and  preceptor. 

At  the  Close  of  the  War. 
South  Carolina  had  passed  the  ordinance  of  Secession  the 
month  before  Dr.  Woodrow  came  to  the  Columbia  Seminary, 
and  the  dreadful  war  between  the  States  began  the  following 
April.    How  he  deported  himself  during  this  fearful  struggle 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


59 


of  four  years'  continuance.  Dr.  Flinn  has  clearly  set  forth. 
But  I  never  saw  him  in  a  more  striking  and  impressive  mani- 
festation of  his  sterling  character  and  inestimable  worth  than 
at  the  close  of  the  war. 

The  South  had  failed  in  her  supreme  effort  to  maintain  her 
independence ;  her  sons  by  the  hundreds  of  thousands  had 
fallen  by  disease  or  upon  the  field  of  battle,  her  fair  land  had 
been  swept  over  by  contending  armies,  her  homes  desolated, 
her  people  impoverished,  her  whole  industrial  and  political 
system  overturned ;  and  we  all  were  in  a  state  of  deep  despond- 
ency and  doubt,  hardly  knowing  where  to  look  or  what  to  do. 
An  appalling  gloom  had  settled  down  upon  us. 

The  Synod  of  South  Carolina  had  adjourned  to  meet  that 
year,  1865,  in  Cheraw ;  but  as  Sherman,  in  his  devastating 
march  through  the  State,  had  overrun  that  town,  the  people 
there  felt  unable  to  entertain  the  body;  and  Salem,  Black 
River,  a  country  church  in  Sumter  County,  whose  territory 
had  escaped,  came  to  the  rescue  and  invited  the  Synod  to  meet 
there.  Many  incidents  connected  with  that  meeting  are  indeli- 
bly impressed  upon  my  memory,  but  none  so  much  as  Dr. 
Woodrow's  appearance  there  and  the  measures  which  he  pro- 
posed for  the  rehabilitation  of  our  Church  and  its  work.  While 
others  were  depressed  and  despondent,  he  was  buoyant  with 
hope  and  full  of  resource  and  enterprise.  I  remember  well  how 
he  spoke,  and  how  he  laid  his  purposes  and  plans  before  the 
Synod. 

One  of  these  was  that  the  Seminary,  whose  buildings 
remained  intact,  but  whose  endowment  was  largely  lost  through 
the  results  of  the  war,  should  reopen  and  go  on  with  its  work, 
the  country  congregations  sending  in  contributions  in  the  shape 
of  provisions  for  the  support  of  the  professors  and  students. 
Another  was  the  resurrection  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian 
newspaper,  which  had  suspended  in  the  latter  days  of  the  war. 
He  had  with  some  help  from  others,  taken  over  this  paper, 
and  proposed  to  edit  and  publish  it  and  the  Reviezv.  And  in 
connexion  with  this  enterprise  he  proposed  to  open  and  conduct 
a  book  depository  in  Columbia  for  the  supply  of  our  people 
with  much  needed  religious  literature,  stationery,  etc. 


60 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


In  carrying  out  these  latter  plans,  Dr.  Woodrow  became  a 
sort  of  factotum  to  our  Church  in  this  section.  We  looked  to 
him  for  information  on  all  subjects;  we  got  our  books  and 
writing  material  at  his  hands ;  and  even  sent  all  kinds  of  Church 
contributions  through  his  office.  And  thus  began  his  illustrious 
career  as  Editor.  The  Southern  Presbyterian  in  his  hands, 
furnished  to  our  people  largely  at  his  personal  expense,  since 
it  utterly  failed  to  pay  the  cost  of  publication,  was  a  noble  and 
most  valuable  paper.  Its  editorials,  written  by  himself  and  such 
able  assistants  as  Drs.  Adger,  Stillman,  Leighton  Wilson,  and 
others,  were  pitched  upon  a  high  plane,  and  made  their  large 
impress  upon  the  Church ;  and  the  selections  which  were  partic- 
ularly fine,  and  forcible  correspondence  on  important  questions, 
enriched  the  pages,  so  that  it  proved  a  joy  and  a  blessing  to 
many  appreciative  readers.  Later,  in  the  Evolution  controversy, 
when  Dr.  Woodrow  used  the  columns  of  his  own  paper  to 
set  forth  his  views  and  defend  himself  against  the  fierce  and 
unwarranted  assaults  made  upon  him,  some  thought  that  he 
was  at  times  unduly  severe  and  dwelt  too  much  upon  that  one 
subject.  But  it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  he  felt  that  he 
was  contending  for  the  truth,  in  the  face  of  gross  misconception 
and  misrepresentation  of  his  views,  and  even  of  harsh  personal 
assaults  upon  his  character ;  and  that  plain  speech  was  required 
in  such  circumstances. 

During  all  those  twenty-eight  years  that  Dr.  Woodrow  edited 
and  published  the  Southern  Presbyterian,  I  was  a  constant  and 
careful  reader  of  its  pages,  as  well  as  a  frequent  contributor 
to  its  columns;  and  I  am  convinced  that  he  rendered  a  most 
valuable  and  important  service  to  the  Church,  but  at  the  cost 
of  a  considerable  fortune  to  himself. 

In  the  General  Assembly  at  Huntsville,  Ala. 
In  the  organisation  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church  at 
Augusta,  Ga.,  in  1861,  although  cut  off  from  foreign  nations 
by  the  war  then  in  progress,  the  General  Assembly  recognised 
and  proclaimed  to  the  world  its  missionary  character,  and 
appointed  an  Executive  Committee  of  Foreign  Missions,  which 
it  located  at  Columbia,  S.  C,  with  the  veteran  missionary,  Rev. 
Dr.  J.  Leighton  Wilson,  as  Secretary.  The  Assembly  at  the 
same  time  appointed  Dr.  Woodrow  as  Treasurer  of  this  cause, 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


61 


an  office  which  he  consented  to  accept  upon  the  express  condi- 
tion that  he  should  receive  no  salary  therewith.  Continued  in 
this  office,  by  annual  reelection,  for  many  years,  the  Assembly 
subsequently  insisted  that  he  should  receive  a  salary,  and  later 
combined  the  Executive  Committees  of  Foreign  and  Domestic 
Missions,  with  Drs.  Wilson  and  Woodrow  serving  as  Secretary 
and  Treasurer  respectively  of  both  causes.  And  as  the  Church 
and  its  work  grew,  as  Foreign  Missions  and  Domestic  Missions 
(having  taken  the  name  of  Sustentation  and  Evangelistic 
Labor)  developed  especially  after  the  close  of  the  war,  Dr. 
Woodrow,  the  efficient  financial  officer  of  these  two  great 
departments  of  work,  rendered  most  valuable  and  eminent 
service  to  our  Church.  How  he  was  able  to  accomplish  so 
successfully  and  well  all  that  he  was  doing — as  professor  in  the 
Seminary  and  also  in  the  University  of  South  Carolina,  editor 
and  publisher  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian  and  Review,  book 
merchant,  and  Treasurer  besides — was  a  wonder  to  many.  And 
so  excellent  and  inestimable  were  his  services  that  we  who 
were  familiar  with  them  could  think  and  speak  of  them  only 
in  terms  of  highest  admiration  and  praise,  and  could  hardly 
understand  how  any  one  could  think  or  speak  of  them  otherwise. 

But  early  in  1871  criticisms  of  the  Committee  and  of  his 
treasurership  in  particular,  began  to  appear  in  at  least  one  of 
our  Church  papers.  And  so  frequent,  numerous,  and  sharp 
were  these  criticisms,  some  of  them  even  impugning  the  integ- 
rity of  the  Treasurer,  that  much  feeling  was  aroused  in  the 
Church  with  regard  to  them.  Although  Dr.  Woodrow  replied 
to  the  charges  and  stated  the  facts  in  explanation,  they  were 
repeated,  and  became  more  and  more  severe,  and  were  even 
carried  up  to  the  General  Assembly. 

I  was  a  member  of  that  Assembly,  which  held  its  sessions  in 
Huntsville,  Ala.  The  very  morning  it  opened  I  was  myself 
directly  approached  by  a  member  who  I  knew  had  taken  part 
in  these  criticisms,  and  asked:  "What  are  you  brethren  in 
South  Carolina  going  to  do  about  the  abuses  in  the  Seminary 
and  Committee?"  My  indignation  was  stirred  at  once,  and  I 
replied  that  I  knew  of  no  abuses,  and  gave  the  brother  pretty 
plainly  my  mind  about  the  matter.  Afterwards  I  learned  that 
this  same  Commissioner  had  been  busy  interviewing  other  mem- 


62 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


bers  by  the  way  and  at  the  Assembly,  and  with  the  help  of  a 
newspaper  editor,  had  been  diligently  endeavoring  to  work  up  a 
sentiment  against  Dr.  Woodrow.  And  as  the  Assembly  pro- 
gressed, several  overtures  and  motions  aimed  at  the  Columbia 
Committee  were  presented ;  but  were  promptly  voted  down  by 
the  Assembly.  However,  things  had  taken  such  shape  before 
the  public,  that  Drs.  Wilson  and  Woodrow,  Secretary  and 
Treasurer  of  Foreign  Missions  and  Sustentation,  requested 
the  Assembly  to  investigate  carefully  and  fully  their  official 
transactions ;  and  a  committee  was  appointed  for  this  purpose. 
Meanwhile  the  agitation  was  going  on  privately,  and  the 
feeling  was  becoming  more  and  more  intense.  At  length, 
when  the  committee's  report,  which  fully  vindicated  the  Secre- 
tary and  Treasurer  in  the  face  of  all  the  charges  which  had 
been  made  against  them,  was  being  considered,  some  of  the 
charges  were  repeated  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly,  and  came 
from  a  source  of  sufficient  respectability  to  justify  Dr. 
Woodrow  in  speaking  in  his  own  defence.  The  provocation 
had  been  very  great,  the  feeling  was  intense,  and  the  issues 
were  important  both  to  the  Church  and  to  the  individuals  impli- 
cated. Dr.  Woodrow,  under  powerful  emotion,  but  with  entire 
self-control,  took  the  floor  and  spoke  for  two  hours.  And 
such  a  speech  I  have  never  heard  before  or  since.  It  was  a 
thorough  and  complete  vindication  of  himself  and  the  Commit- 
tee, and  a  most  fearful  exposure  and  demolition  of  the  person, 
who  using  several  different  noms  de  plume  in  the  same  news- 
paper, had  been  the  author  of  the  numerous  charges,  and  was 
here  pushing  them  before  the  Assembly.  That  this  speech  was 
severe  is  to  put  it  mildly.  It  was  overwhelming  and  crushing 
to  his  assailants.  And  the  effect  was  profound.  At  its  close 
many  of  the  Commissioners  were  in  tears,  and  the  whole 
audience,  filling  the  large  auditorium,  was  deeply  moved,  and 
indignation  ran  high. 

The  upshot  of  the  matter  was  that  the  Assembly  fully  vin- 
dicated and  re-appointed  Dr.  Woodrow  as  Treasurer ;  the 
brother  who  had  specially  brought  forward  and  advocated  the 
charges  against  him  and  the  Committee,  openly  apologised  and 
withdrew  his  offensive  language ;  and  the  Assembly,  which  had 
been  so  wrought  up,  adjourned  in  a  happy  love-feast. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


63 


But,  as  Dr.  Woodrow's  speech,  taken  down  verbatim  by  a 
most  competent  stenographer,  was  afterwards  published  in  full, 
some  who  read  it  only  in  cold  type  and  did  not  know  all  the  cir- 
cumstances or  understand  the  immediate  provocation,  con- 
demned its  severity.  For  myself,  however,  as  on  the  ground 
and  in  the  very  midst  of  the  exciting  conflict,  and  considering 
the  character,  the  manner,  and  the  persistency  of  the  charges 
against  him,  involving  dishonesty  and  malfeasance  in  office,  I 
can  hardly  see  how  Dr.  Woodrow  could  have  spoken  other- 
wise.   At  any  rate  I  readily  excused  the  severity  of  his  speech. 

The  worries  and  distress  involved  in  this  experience,  together 
with  the  burden  of  the  immense  and  exacting  labors  which  he 
was  performing,  proved  too  much  for  Dr.  Woodrow's  strength, 
and  he  broke  down  in  health,  necessitating  a  temporary  relief 
from  work  and  care,  and  a  year's  rest,  which  he  took  with  his 
family  in  Europe. 

The  Evolution  Controversy. 

I  was  a  director  of  the  Columbia  Theological  Seminary  from 
1879  to  1886.  In  this  way  I  became  personally  associated  with 
the  beginning  of  the  Evolution  Controversy  in  which  Dr. 
Woodrow  so  prominently  figured,  and  which  brought  about 
his  removal  from  the  Perkins  Professorship. 

At  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Directors  in  May, 
1883,  the  Rev.  Dr.  J.  B.  Mack,  an  active  and  influential  director, 
the  Secretary  of  the  Board,  and  the  Financial  Agent  of  the 
Seminary,  proposed  that  the  Board  formally  request  Prof. 
Woodrow  to  publish  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Review  his 
views  touching  Evolution,  especially  as  concerns  the  body  of 
Adam.  This  was  based  upon  an  official  statement  which  Dr. 
Woodrow  had  just  laid  before  the  Board  covering  his  teach- 
ings in  the  class-room  on  the  subject  of  Evolution.  Not  sus- 
pecting for  one  moment  any  sinister  purpose  in  connexion  with 
this  proposition,  and  feeling  assured  that  Dr.  Woodrow  had 
nothing  whatever  to  conceal  about  his  teachings  in  the  Semi- 
nary, and  that  we  all  desired  sincerely  for  the  Church  to  know 
exactly  what  was  being  taught  in  this  cherished  school  of  the 
prophets,  I  cheerfully  voted  for  the  resolution  offered.  At 


64 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


the  same  time  the  Alumni  Association  of  the  Seminary,  meet- 
ing during  this  session  of  the  Board,  selected  Dr.  Woodrow  to 
deliver  the  annual  address  before  the  Association  the  next 
year,  the  express  understanding  being  that  he  might  prepare 
and  use  for  the  double  purpose  the  desired  article  on  Evolution. 
With  this  understanding,  he  did  deliver  before  the  Alumni 
Association,  when  the  Directors  were  all  present,  his  famous 
address  in  May,  1884,  which  he  also  published  as  requested 
in  the  next  (July,  1884)  issue  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian 
Review,  and  laid  before  the  Board  of  Directors  at  its  next 
meeting,  the  following  September. 

Now  a  few  words  should  be  said  in  connexion  with  the 
delivery  of  this  address.  For  months  beforehand  it  was  widely 
known  that  Dr.  Woodrow  would  at  this  time  speak  on  Evolu- 
tion, and  the  information  was  generally  circulated  in  Columbia. 
The  public  exercises  of  the  Alumni  Association  were  held 
Wednesday  evening  in  the  First  Presbyterian  church,  from 
whose  pulpit  Dr.  Woodrow  spoke.  Students  and  citizens,  as 
well  as  those  connected  with  the  Seminary,  had  assembled  to 
hear  him.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  address,  during  the  further 
sessions  of  the  Alumni  Association — of  which  I  was  at  that 
time  Secretary, — Dr.  Mack  moved  that  the  thanks  of  the  Asso- 
ciation be  extended  to  Dr.  Woodrow  for  his  address,  and  the 
motion  was  adopted  without  objection.  The  daily  papers  of 
the  next  morning  appeared  absolutely  without  mention  of  the 
address  of  the  evening  previous.  The  Board  of  Directors  con- 
tinued its  sessions  the  day  following,  and  not  a  word  was  said 
in  its  meetings  about  it.  True,  there  was  some  discussion  in 
private  circles  in  regard  to  Dr.  Woodrow's  views  as  expressed 
in  his  address,  and  its  probable  effect  in  the  Church.  I  remem- 
ber that  one  director  expressed  the  decided  opinion  that  serious 
trouble  would  come  of  it.  But  I  recollect  also  that  when 
that  distinguished  professor  of  the  Seminary  who  afterwards 
vigorously  opposed  Dr.  Woodrow  in  the  Synod  and  elsewhere, 
was  asked  at  his  home  in  my  presence  what  he  thought  of  it, 
he  replied  that  while  he  did  not  agree  with  the  views  expressed 
by  Dr.  Woodrow,  he  doubted  whether  they  would  provoke 
much  public  discussion,  emphasising  the  point  that  only  an 
expert  in  Natural  Science  would  be  competent  to  meet  Dr. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


65 


Woodrow  in  the  discussion.  These  facts  I  mention  to  show 
that  this  address  on  Evolution  at  the  time  of  its  delivery 
created  no  special  alarm  or  excitement  in  the  Church. 

It  was  therefore  a  great  surprise  to  me  shortly  afterwards — 
but  before  the  address  had  been  published  in  the  Review  and 
had  been  read — to  notice  in  connexion  with  the  proceedings  of 
the  General  Assembly,  which  met  that  year  at  Vicksburg,  Miss., 
hints  as  to  error  being  taught  in  Columbia  Seminary ;  and  that 
a  little  later  the  church  papers  were  full  of  attacks  upon  the 
orthodoxy  of  Dr.  Woodrow  and  his  teachings. 

I  have  thus  been  thoroughly  convinced  that  the  violent  and 
bitter  controversy  which  followed,  well  nigh  disrupting  our 
Seminary  at  Columbia,  greatly  disturbing  the  peace  of  our 
Church,  and  entailing  injury  and  suffering  and  distress  upon 
her  faithful  servant,  Dr.  Woodrow,  proceeded  largely  from  a 
lamentable  misunderstanding  of  his  views.  As  furnishing  some 
evidence  of  this,  when  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Seminary 
met  the  following  September  and  carefully  considered  his 
address,  then  formally  laid  before  them  in  printed  copies,  of 
the  eleven  members  present,  all  of  whom  had  been  appointed 
without  any  reference  whatever  to  their  relations  to  Dr.  Wood- 
row  or  his  views,  but  because  of  their  general  qualifications  for 
the  office,  eight  of  them,  after  full  discussion  and  most  care- 
ful consideration,  declared  by  formal  resolution  that  while  they 
were  not  prepared  to  accept  Dr.  Woodrow's  view  of  the  proba- 
ble creation  of  Adam's  body,  yet  in  their  judgment  there  was 
nothing  in  Evolution  as  denned  and  limited  by  him,  inconsistent 
with  perfect  soundness  in  the  faith. 

For  myself  I  have  never  claimed  to  be  an  Evolutionist.  I 
am  not  sufficiently  versed  in  Natural  Science  to  form  a  decided 
opinion  on  the  question  from  my  personal  knowledge.  But, 
from  the  beginning  I  have  understood  Dr.  Woodrow's  position 
to  be  this :  That  Evolution,  which  concerns  only  the  mode  of 
creation,  is  a  question  altogether  outside  the  Scriptures,  and 
hence  equally  outside  the  province  of  the  Church  to  decide,  but 
purely  one  of  Natural  Science.  Therefore  he  denied  the  right 
of  a  church  court  to  utter  any  opinion  pro  or  con,  on  this  ques- 
tion, and  he  would  as  stoutly  have  opposed  the  Church's  declar- 
ing in  favor  of  Evolution,  as  against  it.    And  he  contended 


5 — w 


6G 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


with  all  the  powers  of  his  acute  and  mighty  intellect,  and  all 
the  ardor  of  his  great  soul,  that  nothing  had  impaired  or  ever 
could  impair  his  confidence  in  the  absolute  integrity  and 
inerrancy  of  the  Bible  as  the  infallible  word  of  God.  And 
while  he  believed  and  taught  that  Evolution  was  probably  in 
his  opinion  the  mode  which  <the  Sovereign  Creator  had 
employed  in  first  making  the  body  of  man  and  other  earthly 
creatures,  yet  he  ever  avowed  that  if  he  could  find  anything  in 
this  theory  which  was  not  consistent  with  the  word  of  God,  he 
would  instantly  abandon  it;  for  he  knew  God's  word  to  be 
true,  while  his  scientific  conclusions  might  be  erroneous.  And 
it  is  a  striking  fact  that  the  General  Assembly  at  Baltimore  in 
1888,  while  formally  condemning  his  views  as  to  the  possible 
evolution  of  Adam's  body,  was  led,  apparently  unwillingly,  to 
put  on  record  the  very  principle  for  which  Dr.  Woodrow  had 
been  contending.  Speaking  of  Adam's  creation  it  said,  "The 
wisdom  of  God  prompted  him  to  reveal  the  fact,  while  the 
inscrutable  mode  of  his  action  therein  he  has  not  revealed." 
(Minutes  of  Assembly,  page  408). 

In  General. 

Forty-six  years  I  was  intimately  associated  with  Dr.  Wood- 
row.  I  knew  him  well  in  the  class-room,  in  the  church  courts, 
in  his  office,  in  his  family,  and  in  private  relations.  And  the 
general  impression  which  he  has  left  upon  me  as  the  result  of 
all  these  years  of  close  acquaintanceship,  may  be  summed  up  as 
follows:  He  was  the  most  intelligent  and  widely  learned  man 
with  whom  I  ever  came  in  contact.  I  have  often  said  that  I 
believed  he  was  competent  to  fill  with  distinguished  ability  any 
chair  in  the  Theological  Seminary,  or  in  the  South  Carolina  Col- 
lege, of  which  he  was  for  many  years  president.  His  judgments 
on  all  questions  which  came  before  us  were  accurate  and  trust- 
worthy. His  principles  were  always  high  and  noble.  His 
executive  ability  was  truly  marvellous ;  he  could  do  more  things 
well  than  any  one  I  ever  knew.  While  strong  in  his  convictions 
and  stout  in  maintaining  them,  in  the  private  relations  of  life  he 
was  simple,  gentle,  and  affectionate;  and  in  his  well-ordered 
family  the  personification  of  love  and  kindness.  Loyalty  to  the 
Scriptures,  to  truth,  to  the  Church,  and  to  God  was  the  distinct- 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


6  7 


ive  and  predominating  motive  of  his  long  and  eminently  useful 
life.  In  the  many  bitter  trials  and  distresses  which  his  contro- 
versies brought  upon  his  devoted  head,  he  often  said  to  me, 
"To  have  the  Church  come  to  the  acceptance  of  the  truth  is 
worth  all  that  I  have  suffered." 


(58 


DR.   JAMES  WOODROW. 


A  Tribute. 


BY  THE)  REV.  DR.  JAMES  Iy.  MARTIN. 

In  this  humble  tribute  to  the  memory  of  James  Woodrow  I 
am  oppressed  with  a  sense  of  my  own  incapacity.  I  shall 
attempt  nothing  more  than  a  simple  portraiture  of  the  man  as 
he  impressed  himself  upon  me.  That  he  was  a  man  of  strong 
personality,  of  profound  scholarship  in  the  scientific  world,  of 
thorough  Biblical  knowledge,  of  soundness  in  all  the  tenets  of 
evangelical  theology,  and  of  marked  ability  in  the  exposition 
and  defence  of  Calvinistic  theology,  no  one  will  deny  who  had 
the  privilege  of  intimate  acquaintance  with  him — in  fact,  these 
things  are  matters  of  extensive  record.  To  me  his  life  and 
labors  are  a  striking  illustration  of  the  truth  that  from  time  to 
time  God  raises  up  particular  men  for  a  special  work  in  the 
realm  of  Natural  or  of  Revealed  Truth.  In  his  case  he  seems 
to  have  been  brought  into  the  world  to  perform  the  special 
work  of  filling  the  chair  of  the  "Perkins  Professorship  of 
Natural  Science  in  Connexion  with  Revelation."  So  that  since 
he  left  his  chair  it  has  remained  to  this  day  practically  vacant — 
a  striking  proof  that  a  Prince  among  men  had  fallen.  That 
such  a  man  should  at  last  suffer  persecution  for  the  Truth's 
sake  is  only  in  keeping  with  the  general  record  of  history ;  the 
far-seeing  might  have  forecasted  the  final  issue.  But  as  in 
other  similar  cases  so  in  this  we  may  say — 

Magna  est  Veritas  et  prevalebit. 

In  this  notice  I  have  taken  for  granted  that  his  "Lectures"  in 
the  Seminary  will  be  published  ;*  as  they  therefore  will  speak 
for  themselves  as  to  the  matter  and  style  of  his  teaching,  there 
is  no  necessity  for  me  to  enter  upon  this  phase  of  the  subject — 
except  incidentally.  Only  let  this  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the 
very  style  of  his  professorship  was  Science  in  "connexion" 

*When  Dr.  Woodrow  first  entered  upon  his  duties  as  Perkins  Professor 
of  Natural  Science  in  Connexion  with  Revelation,  he  carefully  wrote  out 
his  lectures  from  day  to  day;  in  later  years  he  used  only  brief  notes  to 
guide  him  while  lecturing.  I  regret  to  say,  he  destroyed  most  of  his 
written  lectures,  and  I  fear  I  did  not  succeed  in  saving  enough  of  them 
to  justify  their  publication. — Editor. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


69 


with  Revelation.  The  very  terms  of  his  chair  therefore  relieved 
him  of  all  obligation  to  make  Science  bend  to  Revelation,  which 
he  would  never  attempt ;  or  to  make  Revelation  bend  to  Science, 
which  was  equally  abhorrent  to  his  mind.  Confining  himself 
always  to  the  literal  scope  of  his  calling  he  bent  his  energies 
and  sanctified  his  gifts  to  the  elucidation  of  the  truth  on  the 
Biblical  side  and  the  truth  on  the  Scientific  side ;  then  came  the 
honest  devout  inquiry,  What  is  the  "Connexion"?  When  he 
had  shown  that  between  the  one  and  the  other  there  was  the 
harmony  of  non-contradiction  he  felt  that  he  had  discharged 
both  the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  his  obligations  as  the  occupant 
of  the  "Perkins  Professorship."  In  doing  all  this  he  taught 
Science  not  as  a  professor  of  that  branch  in  a  secular  institu- 
tion, and  he  taught  Biblical  Interpretation  not  as  a  professor  of 
that  branch  in  a  Theological  Seminary,  but  only  so  far  in  each 
case  as  was  necessary  to  give  the  student  a  clear  conception  of 
the  real  status  of  each  branch  of  the  compound  subject,  so  that 
his  students  should  see  clearly  the  real  issue,  and  grasp  conclu- 
sively the  proper  solution.  In  other  words  Dr.  Woodrow  never 
forgot  that  in  the  "Perkins  Professorship"  he  filled  a  chair 
altogether  unique. 

Apart  from  these  general  remarks  upon  his  method  in  the 
treatment  of  the  specific  scope  of  his  professorship,  I  shall 
indulge  in  some  remarks  upon  the  impressions  which  as  a  man 
he  has  left  upon  me  as  the  result  of  my  intercourse  with  him  in 
and  out  of  the  class-room.  These  impressions  have  grown 
upon  me  and  deepened  from  year  to  year  as  I  recall  his  teach- 
ings, his  labors,  and  his  persecutions — during  a  period  reaching 
back  for  forty  years. 

One  of  his  striking  characteristics  was  unswerving  Fidelity. 
To  be  faithful  in  every  relation  so  as  to  meet  every  obligation 
and  stand  approved  before  the  Master  whom  he  loved  and  to 
whose  service  he  had  devoted  his  life,  seemed  to  be  his  daily 
inspiration  and  his  habitual  aspiration.  As  if  standing  in  the 
presence  of  that  Master,  he  impressed  me  as  one  whose  first 
inquiry  was — "Lord,  what  wilt  thou  have  me  to  do?"  What- 
ever the  answer  might  be,  there  was  to  him  no  farther  ques- 
tioning or  hesitation.  Forward  in  the  path  of  duty  was  his 
instant  watchword.    Men  might  frown  or  they  might  smile, 


70 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


amidst  the  plaudits  of  friends  or  the  anathemas  of  opponents, 
his  resolution  was  immutable,  his  courage  unflinching,  and  his 
step  unfaltering.  To  this  unflinching  fidelity  to  duty  and  truth 
as  he  understood  it,  was  due  much  of  the  popular  misapprehen- 
sion of  Dr.  Woodrow's  conduct  by  the  public  who  knew  him 
not.  They  criticised  and  condemned  him  because  they  were 
strangers  to  his  deepest  convictions  and  his  profound  loyalty  to 
the  Truth.  Had  they  known  the  true  inwardness  of  his  faith- 
ful soul,  though  they  might  have  repudiated  what  they  consid- 
ered his  errors,  they  would  have  scrupulously  refrained  from 
the  slightest  charge  of  infidelity  to  his  obligations  or  of 
unfaithfulness  to  the  word  of  God  or  to  the  Standards  of  his 
Church.  This  fidelity  to  the  Truth  was  a  constant  and  con- 
spicuous feature  of  every  utterance  before  his  classes.  It  was 
impossible  to  sit  under  his  teaching  and  fail  to  realise  that  the 
Bible  was  to  him  the  Holy  Word  of  God  and  that  to  the  dictum 
of  that  Word  he  bowed  his  mighty  intellect  with  even  greater 
reverence  than  the  ancient  Hebrew  would  prostrate  himself 
before  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant.  Yea,  he  would  shrink  from 
the  irreverent  or  unauthorised  touch  of  that  book  as  if  the 
punishment  of  Uzza's  unholy  touch  of  that  Ark  were  contin- 
ually before  his  mind.  Fidelity  to  the  Truth  of  God — no  matter 
where  that  truth  was  found,  in  Nature  or  in  Revelation — was 
to  him  the  first  great  duty  whether  as  a  student  or  as  a  teacher ; 
to  him  all  truth  was  of  priceless  value,  all  falsehood  not  only 
valueless  but  beyond  expression  pernicious.  Nothing  should 
bind  the  intellect  of  man  but  truth,  nothing  should  bind  the  soul 
of  man  but  truth.  In  Nature  God  has  given  truth  to  the  natural 
man,  in  the  Bible  he  has  given  truth  to  the  spiritual  man ;  both 
natural  and  spiritual  truth  come  from  the  same  source,  they  are 
taught  by  the  same  infallible  Author,  they  are  therefore  one, 
eternal,  and  infallible.  They  speak  with  the  authority  of  their 
Divine  author,  and  therefore  that  they  cannot  contradict  each 
other  is  a  necessary  consequence.  Fidelity  therefore  to  Reve- 
lation and  to  Natural  Science  is  the  supreme  demand  of  the 
common  Author.  Conflict  between  the  two  there  cannot  be; 
but  apparent  conflict  has  often  arisen.  This  however  always 
has  been  due  to  false  interpretations  of  the  book  of  Revelation 
or  of  the  book  of  Nature  or  sometimes  of  both  books,  and 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


71 


sometimes  from  false  inferences  from  the  true  teachings  of  one 
or  the  other  book.  But  false  interpretations  and  false  infer- 
ences as  they  are  no  true  proofs  against  the  integrity  of  the 
Bible,  so  are  they  equally  invalid  against  the  integrity  of  the 
book  of  Nature.  False  theology  and  science  falsely  so  called 
have  been  constantly  deduced  from  the  Scriptures  on  the  one 
hand  and  from  Nature  on  the  other  by  insufficient  induction  or 
by  illogical  inferences.  Under  such  conditions  conflict  may 
naturally  be  expected ;  but  no  sane  person  would  on  this  account 
utterly  repudiate  the  book  of  Revelation  or  the  book  of  Nature. 
False  interpretation  does  not  prove  the  existence  of  an  irrecon- 
cilable conflict;  rather  the  irreconcilable  conflict  proves  the 
existence  of  a  false  interpretation  or  the  illogical  inference. 
Such  being  the  case  the  real  demand  is  for  faithful  re-examina- 
tion of  both  the  testimony  of  Nature  and  that  of  Revelation — 
each  in  its  own  independent  method, — and  a  careful  sifting  of 
every  step  of  the  logical  inferences.  Thus  when  the  error  is 
detected,  no  matter  where,  and  removed,  wdien  the  truth  is  dis- 
covered and  given  its  rightful  place,  then  it  is  made  manifest 
that  in  reality  all  the  while  the  conflict  has  been  not  between 
the  Bible  and  Nature,  but  between  the  false  teachings  assigned 
to  the  Bible  on  the  one  hand  and  to  Nature  on  the  other.  A 
clear  recognition  of  this  preserves  the  student  from  hastily 
assuming  a  conflict,  and  guards  him  against  the  temptation  to 
force  Science  on  the  one  hand  or  to  wrest  the  Scriptures  on  the 
other  hand,  and  so  bring  about  a  false  and  worthless  and  injuri- 
ous reconciliation.  It  takes  away  the  irritation  and  fret  between 
the  student  of  Revelation  and  the  student  of  Nature.  Instead 
of  breeding  distrust  and  antagonism  between  the  two  it  leads 
them  to  realise  the  fraternity  of  their  respective  sciences,  and  so 
as  brothers  in  a  common  pursuit  after  truth  they  can  each  bid 
the  other  "God-speed,"  knowing  that  all  real  progress  on  the 
part  of  one  is  so  far  forth  helpful  to  the  other.  And  whenever 
a  hitch  occurs  it  is  a  call  for  both  to  halt  and  re-examine,  as 
becomes  all  real  seekers  after  truth.  Thus  by  removing  the 
cause  or  as  it  may  be  the  occasion  of  friction  between  the 
students  of  the  Bible  and  the  students  of  Nature  a  long  step  is 
made  in  any  given  case  toward  the  solution  of  any  given  con- 
troversy— or  the  removal  of  any  grounds  of  difficulty  producing 


72 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


the  apparent  conflict.  Under  these  circumstances  Science  and 
Religion  instead  of  arraying  themselves  on  opposite  sides  for  a 
pitched  battle  against  each  other  would  be  found  each  under  its 
own  banner  arrayed  together,  fighting  each  with  its  own 
weapons  against  their  common  enemy — Error,  and  in  behalf  of 
their  common  object — Truth.  So  each  would  pursue  his 
respective  investigations  under  a  firm  conviction  that  by  no 
possibility  can  the  truth  of  Nature  contradict  the  truth  of 
Revelation.  Thus  within  these  lines  did  Dr.  Woodrow  vindi- 
cate his  Fidelity  to  Natural  Science  and  Revelation. 

His  Conscientiousness  was  another  marked  trait  with  which 
I  was  impressed.  By  this  of  course  I  mean  a  scrupulous  regard 
to  the  decisions  of  conscience.  The  keen  intellect  of  Dr.  Wood- 
row  and  his  highly  cultivated  analytical  powers  seemed  to  be  in 
direct  and  continual  communication  with  his  moral  faculty,  so 
that  mind  and  conscience  worked  together  most  harmoniously. 
With  him  right  and  wrong  were  very  serious  and  solemn  things. 
Like  truth  and  error,  he  sought  the  one  and  avoided  the  other. 
There  was  indeed  a  similarity  and  yet  a  difference:  if  as  a 
student  of  natural  law  he  studied  most  devoutly  the  book  of 
Nature  where  God  had  revealed  the  natural  laws,  when  it  came 
to  a  question  of  morals  he  was  well  aware  that  the  understand- 
ing is  darkened,  the  conscience  perverted,  and  the  affections 
depraved.  He  turned  then  for  guidance  to  that  Book  wherein 
God  had  revealed  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 
To  this  guide  he  resorted  in  humble  prayer  for  that  Divine 
illumination  by  which  its  precepts  should  become  a  lamp  unto 
his  feet,  a  light  unto  his  path,  and  the  man  of  his  counsel. 
When  thus  enlightened  and  fortified  the  voice  of  his  conscience 
became  to  him  as  the  voice  of  God,  and  like  the  Psalmist  he 
could  say :  "My  heart  is  fixed — my  heart  is  fixed ;"  and  with 
that  conviction  he  had  the  courage  of  a  lion  and  the  spirit  of  a 
martyr.  As  the  outcome  of  this  conscientiousness  he  was  free 
from  every  tinge  of  Rationalism.  The  word  of  God  was 
instantly  and  always  the  touchstone  of  truth  and  the  arbiter  of 
controversy.  As  another  sequence  he  jealously  guarded  his 
conscience  against  the  precepts  of  men  teaching  for  doctrines 
the  commandments  of  men.  He  would  call  no  man  "Master" ; 
God  alone  was  the  Lord  of  his  conscience.    Still  another 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


73 


sequence  was  that  he  was  extremely  scrupulous  against  impos- 
ing the  dictates  of  his  conscience  upon  another.  He  would  do 
unto  others  as  he  would  have  others  do  unto  him ;  he  would 
freely  communicate  his  own  views  and  the  results  he  had 
reached  and  the  grounds  of  his  decision,  and  then  leave  one  to 
one's  own  reflections,  conclusions,  and  convictions.  Conse- 
quently he  was  a  man  of  the  broadest  Christian  charity, 
religiously  respecting  the  conscientious  convictions  of  others, 
attributing  to  them  without  reserve  that  sincerity  of  which  he 
was  himself  conscious.  He  was  one  of  the  most  conscientious 
men  I  ever  knew — seeking  at  all  times  a  conscience  void  of 
offence  toward  God  and  toward  men. 

Dr.  Woodrow's  Spirituality  also  made  a  marked  impression 
upon  me.  No  matter  when  or  where  I  was  with  him  I  could 
not  but  feel  that  I  was  in  the  presence  of  a  child  of  God.  There 
was  a  quiet,  unobtrusive  something — an  aroma  that  seemed  to 
exhale  from  a  soul  that  was  in  habitual  communion  with  his 
God  and  Father  reconciled  through  the  peace-speaking  blood  of 
his  Son.  In  that  intercourse  with  him  there  was  a  silent  influ- 
ence upon  my  spiritual  nature  which  for  the  time  being  seemed 
to  lift  me  up  into  ithe  calm  and  quiet  light  of  that  joyful  yet 
well-balanced  religious  experience  which  was  the  portion  of  his 
own  soul.  He  did  not  belong  to  the  class  of  sad  and  gloomy 
Christians,  he  was  not  a  doubting  Thomas ;  with  childlike  sim- 
plicity he  believed  the  promises  to  be  divine,  therefore  infallible 
and  immutable,  and  that  they  were  conveyed  to  him  through  the 
Covenant  of  Grace,  and  so  he  embraced  them  joyfully  and  in 
full  assurance  of  faith  to  his  own  spiritual  nourishment  and 
growth  in  grace. 

His  Humility  was  apparent — not  obtrusive,  which  indeed 
would  have  proclaimed  it  a  sham.  Nothing  was  farther  from 
him  than  to  seem  to  be  what  he  was  not.  But  there  was  an 
absence  of  all  spiritual  pride,  all  intellectual  pride,  all  worldly 
pride.  There  was  indeed  an  effort  to  form  a  true  estimate  of 
himself  according  to  the  apostle's  exhortation :  "Not  to  think 
of  himself  more  highly  than  he  ought  to  think:  but  to  think 
soberly,  according  as  God  hath  dealt  to  every  man  the  measure 
of  faith."    I  cannot  better  express  myself  in  regard  to  this  trait 


'74 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


of  his  character  than  to  say  that  it  was  soaked  into  me  whenever 
I  came  into  communion  with  him.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  make 
the  impression  that  Dr.  Woodrow  was  a  "weakling;"  true 
humility  is  a  trait  belonging  to  strength  of  character;  and  his 
whole  life  proclaims  him  to  have  been  a  man  of  strength.  He 
was  a  devout  student  of  Nature ;  and  as  he  grew  in  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  mighty  works  of  his  Creator,  it  humbled  his  intel- 
lect. He  was  no  less  a  devout  student  of  the  Bible,  and  as  he 
advanced  in  the  wonders  of  redeeming  grace,  it  humbled  his 
soul,  until  like  the  holy  patriarch  he  could  say :  I  am  but  "dust 
and  ashes."  Thus  Science  and  Religion  combined  to  humble 
him  in  the  presence  of  the  one  only  living  and  true  God. 

That  Dr.  Woodrow  was  a  man  of  Scientific  Accuracy  is  be- 
yond all  dispute.  He  was  a  born  scientist.  God  qualified  him 
for  and  called  him  to  this  department  of  mental  activity,  and 
furnished  him  abundant  opportunities  for  usefulness  in  his 
chosen  field  of  labor.  It  was  this  preeminent  attainment  in 
Science — acknowledged  not  only  in  America  but  in  Europe — 
that  constituted  in  large  part  his  peculiar  fitness  for  the  "Per- 
kins Professorship."  He  did  not  have  to  borrow  his  science 
from  the  writings  of  others;  he  was  himself  a  Scientist,  thor- 
oughly furnished  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  the  labors  and 
conclusions  of  others  in  the  same  field.  But  what  I  wish 
especially  to  note  in  this  connexion  is  that  he  gave  the  full 
benefit  of  all  this  lofty  intellect,  this  sure  mental  training,  this 
acquired  scientific  accuracy  to  the  investigation  of  the  Bible. 
If  Induction  is  invaluable  in  securing  the  secrets  of  Nature, 
no  less  valuable  is  it  as  a  method  to  secure  the  interpretation 
of  Revelation.  If  the  searching  process  of  the  syllogistic 
method  is  valuable  in  the  analysis  and  final  test  of  the  validity 
of  the  final  conclusions  of  Natural  Science,  no  less  valuable  is 
that  Deductive  logic  as  a  test  of  the  validity  of  what  might  be 
claimed  as  "good  and  necessary  consequence"  from  the  text  of 
Holy  Writ.  The  original  of  the  Book  of  Nature  and  the 
original  of  the  Book  of  Revelation  are  both  inerrant,  and  when 
they  are  interrogated  for  their  message  from  God  to  man,  both 
of  them  demand  that  the  investigation  be  conducted  inductively 
and  deductively — with    scientific   accuracy.    Dr.  Woodrow 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


75 


acknowledged  cordially  this  demand  and  sought  conscientiously 
to  discharge  the  obligation — 

Nam  neque  decipitur  ratio,  nec  decipit  unquatn. 

I  shall  notice  in  the  last  place  Dr.  Woodrow's  Love  of  Truth. 
From  what  has  already  been  said  this  feature  is  an  unavoidable 
conclusion,  but  I  think  it  worthy  of  distinct  and  separate  men- 
tion. He  sought  Truth  because  he  loved  it,  and  he  loved  it 
because  it  was  Truth,  and  as  such  came  from  the  God  of  Truth 
in  whom  is  hidden  all  the  treasures  of  the  true,  the  beautiful, 
and  the  good ;  so  that  every  advance  in  the  knowledge  of  truth 
is  so  far  forth  a  progress  in  the  knowledge  of  God.  As  a 
subject  of  King  Jesus  he  was  a  citizen  of  the  kingdom  of  truth, 
and  every  branch  of  the  realm  of  knowledge  as  it  yielded  up  to 
human  research  the  hidden  treasures  of  truth  extended  the 
boundary  of  the  kingdom  of  grace.  The  Holy  Spirit  who  is 
"the  Spirit  of  truth"  is  equally  the  Creator  of  the  material 
universe  as  also  the  author  of  the  Bible,  and  so  is  he  therefore 
glorified  by  every  onward  step  of  Religion  and  of  Science.  Dr. 
Woodrow  detested  bondage,  he  longed  for  freedom,  and  he 
remembered  it  is  written  "The  truth  shall  make  you  free/'  In 
error  is  bondage,  in  truth  is  freedom.  The  ruin  of  our  race 
was  inaugurated  and  is  continually  promoted  by  falsehood 
inculcated  by  the  "father  of  lies,"  whereas  our  redemption  from 
that  galling  bondage  came  through  him  who  is  "The  Truth." 
No  wonder  the  love  of  truth  was  the  inspiration  of  his  heart 
and  the  diligent  search  for  truth  the  mainspring  of  all  his 
studies.  Hence  the  moment  he  suspected  an  error,  he  would 
reexamine;  the  moment  he  detected  error,  he  would  eliminate 
it;  the  moment  he  discovered  truth,  he  would  embrace  it. 
Naturally  therefore  he  habitually  practised  the  Apostle's  exhor- 
tation :  "Prove  au,  things,  hold  fast  that  which  is  good ;"  for 
with  true  scientific  instinct  he  recognised  these  words  of  the 
Apostle  as  the  very  root  of  all  inductive  science,  anticipating 
Bacon  by  many,  many  centuries,  and  as  the  parent  of  all  true 
Philosophy  ancient  or  modern. 

In  conclusion  let  me  disclaim  any  attempt  to  furnish  the 
picture  of  a  perfect  man.  As  he  himself  would  be  shocked  at 
the  suggestion  of  such  a  tribute,  so  would  he  be  the  first  to 


76  DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 

administer  to  me  the  deserved  rebuke.  Far  away  from  such  a 
thought  has  been  my  aim.  On  the  contrary  my  sole  purpose 
has  been  to  transfer  through  the  printed  page  to  other  minds  a 
simple  outline  of  the  image  which  in  my  mind  is 

Sacred  to  the  Memory  of 
James  Woodrow. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


77 


Recollections  and  Appreciation. 


BY  THE  REV.  DR.  GEORGE  L.  PETRIE. 

My  earliest  acquaintance  with  Dr.  James  Woodrow  was 
when  he  was  a  Professor  in  Oglethorpe  University.  At  the 
age  of  seventeen  years  I  had  just  entered  the  college,  and  saw 
him  for  the  first  time.  He  made  a  profound  and  lasting 
impression  on  me  by  reason  of  what  I  heard  of  him.  He  was 
crossing  the  campus,  and  was  pointed  out  as  a  marked  man.  I 
recall  his  appearance.  Under  thirty  years  of  age,  of  slender 
body,  measured  step,  dignified  bearing,  and  reserved  in  manner, 
there  was  about  him  something  to  attract  and  hold  attention. 
He  had  recently  returned  from  a  German  University  where  he 
had  made  a  remarkable  record,  and  was  highly  esteemed  and 
honored.  He  was  the  youngest  member  of  the  Oglethorpe 
Faculty,  and  it  was  said  of  him  that  he  could  teach  everything 
in  the  college  curriculum.  These  are  the  things  that  impress 
a  boy's  mind.  They  impressed  mine,  and  created  in  me  a  great 
reverence  for  the  man.  Indeed  I  never  recovered  from  the  awe 
inspired  by  this  earliest  impression. 

A  closer  relation  and  more  intimate  acquaintance  of  course 
brought  me  to  a  better  and  more  accurate  estimate  of  him,  even 
while  I  was  still  a  college  student.  In  this  new  and  improved 
estimate,  he  lost  nothing  but  gained  much  in  my  regard.  I  was 
more  and  more  deeply  impressed  with  his  learning,  as  vast  and 
varied ;  with  his  scholarship  as  minute,  accurate,  and  extensive ; 
with  his  painstaking  methods  and  his  patience  as  a  teacher ; 
with  his  gentleness  and  kindness  as  a  man.  He  taught  mainly 
by  lecture,  and  required  absolute  quiet  and  strictest  attention  in 
the  class.  Being  of  sensitive  nature  he  was  disturbed  by  inat- 
tention or  noise.  His  class-room  during  lecture  was  distin- 
guished for  perfect  order,  and  afforded  rare  opportunities  to 
learn.  So  anxious  was  he  to  promote  the  progress  of  his 
students  that  he  spared  no  pains  to  help  them  forward  in  the 
difficult  paths  of  learning.  The  earnest  student  soon  came  to 
count  him  as  a  valuable  friend.  He  united  a  reserve  which 
forbade  a  reckless  intrusion  with  an  affability  which  invited 


78 


DR.  JAMSS  WOODROW. 


fellowship.  The  boy  who  wished  to  learn  knew  where  to  go  to 
find  a  helpful  friend. 

There  are  three  teachers  to  whom  I  have  ever  felt  greatly 
indebted,  whose  masterful  influence  I  have  regarded  as  a  bene- 
diction on  my  life:  James  H.  Thornwell,  Daniel  H.  Hill,  and 
James  Woodrow.  Each  in  his  own  department  was  an  extra- 
ordinary master.  It  would  be  difficult  to  say  to  which  of  these 
I  am  most  indebted — the  profound  and  versatile  theologian,  the 
great  mathematician,  or  the  scientific  and  classical  teacher.  I 
would  lay  the  tribute  of  grateful  praise  at  the  feet  of  each,  and 
account  myself  blessed  in  having  known  them  all. 

Soon  after  I  entered  Columbia  Theological  Seminary  Dr. 
Woodrow  was  transferred  from  Oglethorpe  University  to  the 
Seminary.  In  this  way  my  privilege  of  attending  his  lectures 
was  renewed.  My  maturer  mind  more  keenly  appreciated  his 
worth.  As  a  Seminary  Professor  he  impressed  me  as  an 
earnest  and  devout  Christian,  of  strong  faith  and  simple  life, 
and  transparent  character.  He  always  manifested  a  profound 
reverence  for  the  Scriptures  as  the  word  of  God,  to  which  he 
gave  his  supreme  allegiance.  He  was  unswerving  in  his  devo- 
tion to  Truth  as  he  saw  it.  He  displayed  great  ability  in  the 
presentation  of  his  views.  He  possessed  large  learning  from 
which  he  was  wont  delightfully  to  draw.  He  had  a  mind  of 
remarkably  keen  discriminating  powers,  and  analytical  in  an 
extraordinary  degree.  With  all  of  these  gifts  there  fell  about 
him  the  robe  of  sweet  charity  for  his  fellow-men. 

If  ever  there  seemed  asperity  in  him,  it  was  because  of  his 
supreme  devotion  (to  Truth  as  he  saw  it,  and  felt  called  to 
maintain  it.  At  heart  he  was  lovely,  gentle,  and  kind.  He 
would  not  choose  to  hurt  a  creature  in  God's  world.  But  he 
would  suffer  unto  death  sooner  than  be  recreant  to  a  sacred 
trust. 

His  ripe  scholarship  made  the  classics  a  delight  to  him. 
While  he  was  a  Professor  in  the  Theological  Seminary,  under 
heavy  pressure  of  many  duties,  with  a  new  department  of 
instruction  in  his  charge  to  give  it  shape  and  to  mark  out  its 
course,  which  would  have  been  enough  fully  to  employ  an 
ordinary  man,  he  was  accustomed  to  review  the  Greek  and 
Latin  Classics  in  their  original  languages.    Knowing  my  fond- 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


79 


ness  for  these  studies,  he  invited  me  to  join  him  in  reading  anew 
the  writings  of  these  old  friends  of  college  days.  The  sad 
political  disturbances  of  those  times  spoiled  many  beautiful, 
well-laid  plans,  and  put  an  effective  arrest  upon  this  scheme  in 
which  there  was  a  promise  of  much  pleasure  and  profit.  His 
proposal  only  proved  his  regard  for  the  interest  of  a  pupil  who 
loved  and  honored  him. 

After  graduating  at  the  Seminary,  I  seldom  met  Dr.  Wood- 
row.  Our  paths  have  been  apart.  But  whenever  I  met  him,  I 
found  him  an  unchanged  friend,  and  the  occasion  always  called 
forth  renewed  expressions  of  regard.  I  have  always  rejoiced 
in  his  friendship,  and  have  honored  him  for  his  abilities,  attain- 
ments, and  achievements. 

Now  that  his  life  has  been  completed,  his  work  done,  and 
his  record  written  and  sealed,  I  rejoice  to  say,  in  the  review  of 
all,  that  I  regard  him  as  one  of  the  inner  circle  of  the  Church's 
ablest,  most  learned,  most  cultured,  and  most  consecrated  men. 


80 


DR  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Recollections. 


BY  THE  REV.  DR.  WM.  E.  BOGGS. 

Memory  runs  back  over  an  interval  of  just  about  fifty  years 
to  the  time  when  the  young  Professor  came  from  Oglethorpe 
University  to  take  his  seat  in  the  newly  established  Perkins 
Chair,  the  first  of  its  kind,  I  believe,  in  the  whole  world.  I 
was  soon  to  graduate  at  College  and  to  become  his  pupil  in  the 
"Relations  between  Natural  Science  and  Revealed  Religion," 
but  my  call  to  the  ministry  had  not  been  made  clear  to  me.  I 
recall  his  features  as  I  met  him  in  social  circles — the  face  finely 
cut  and  nearly  as  white  as  marble ;  the  fine  eyes  looking  straight 
at  one  through  glasses  that  did  not  conceal  their  penetration  or 
their  kindliness.  His  manner  was  an  invitation  to  friendly 
intercourse,  and  the  voice  was  wonderfully  soft  and  gentle. 
There  was  never  the  least  suggestion  of  self-assertion ;  of  his 
having  been  a  favorite  pupil  of  the  great  Agassiz ;  or  of  his 
feeling  otherwise  than  "a  man  among  men,"  to  be  rated  at  his 
worth  when  fairly  and  dispassionately  judged.  After  talking 
with  him  one  went  away  feeling  a  sort  of  pleasure  in  his  interest 
about  one.  I  was  soon  to  discover  that  he  had  a  strong  hold 
upon  the  confidence  and  affection  of  a  fine  company  of  "Theo- 
logues,"  who  had  been  his  pupils  at  Oglethorpe  University. 
And  also  that  on  downright,  outspoken  men  like  Drs.  Thorn- 
well  and  Adger  he  was  making  a  favorable  impression. 

And  when  not  long  afterwards  I  entered  his  class-room  in  the 
Seminary,  I  found  an  instructor  whose  position  was  not  above 
and  apart  from  his  pupils,  but  among  them,  as  an  elder  brother 
ready  to  help  and  encourage  them.  The  facts  of  Science  were 
simply  and  clearly  stated  in  their  bearing  upon  his  theme. 
And  opinions,  his  own  and  other  men's,  were  quietly  given. 
Questions  and  difficulties  real  or  imagined  were  invited.  Invari- 
ably the  teacher's  replies  were  given  without  assumption  of 
authority  save  such  as  belongs  to  truth  when  made  apparent 
And  I  do  not  recall  a  single  instance  in  which  one  of  us  was 
made  to  feel  "cheap,"  because  of  any  slowness  of  apprehension 
or  ludicrous  error.  The  teachings  of  Holy  Scripture  were 
always  reverently  set  forth  as  of  final  authority  on  any  subject 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


81 


treated  of  by  the  Divine  Spirit.  His  words,  though  in  some 
not  unimportant  respects  they  might  admit  of  a  new  interpre- 
tation, yet  were  never  to  be  twisted  or  forced  to  yield  some 
meaning  that  might  be  the  favorite  of  an  hour.  Each  source  of 
information,  the  volume  of  Nature  and  the  volume  of  Scrip- 
ture, must  be  allowed  to  speak  for  itself.  And  then  his 
principle  of  "Non-Contradiction/'  rather  than  didactic  agree- 
merit,  was  calmly  applied  to  evince  their  freedom  from  disa- 
greement. 

This  calm,  non-sensational  way  of  showing  the  harmony  of 
Science  and  the  Bible  very  probably  failed  at  first  to  make  much 
impression  on  the  impatient  mind,  but  it  grew  upon  one  from 
day  to  day  until  by  degrees  one  came  to  see  in  this  soft-spoken 
young  Professor  one  who  loved  and  trusted  both  of  God's 
revelations — Creation  and  the  Word.  And  finally  one  realised 
that  his  principle  was  the  key  which  unlocked  puzzles  and 
avoided  the  entangling  alliances  of  Scientific  Hypothesis  and  of 
Scriptural  Exegesis  which  had  so  often  created  confusion, 
strife,  and  skepticism  in  the  past  under  the  caption  of  "The 
Conflict  of  Science  and  Religion."  Thus  it  was  that  we  came 
to  deal  with 

"Thoughts  that  wander  through  Eternity" 

— the  Professor  and  his  pupils  together,  his  encouraging 
word,  the  touch  of  his  kindly  hand,  as  it  were,  ever  ready  to 
make  steady  their  tottering  feet  when  on  slippery  paths,  and  to 
release  them  from  the  clutch  of  unfriendly  thorns  by  the  way- 
side. And  now  after  nearly  fifty  years  of  experience,  I  seem 
to  realise  more  than  ever  the  help  thus  given  me  as  man  and  as 
minister  so  long  ago  in  the  class-room  of  the  Seminary.  Dr. 
Woodrow's  principle  of  "Non-Contradiction,"  rather  than  con- 
currence, has  never  failed  to  help  me  in  time  of  need.  It  has 
been  continually  whispering:  "No  scientific  teachings  are  to  be 
sought  in  the  Bible.  And  no  twisting  of  Scripture  to  force  an 
agreement  with  Science." 

Before  my  Seminary  studies  had  been  completed,  however, 
there  came  a  loud  call  for  me  to  take  part  with  the  younger  men 
of  the  South  in  the  great  War  between  the  States.  And  in 
parting  with  Dr.  Woodrow,  I  was  to  discover  a  new  side  of 
his  character.  Of  pure  Scottish  blood,  born  in  England,  and 
6 — w 


82 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


educated  in  Pennsylvania,  he  had  deliberately  made  choice  of 
the  South  as  his  future  home.  He  had  studied  her  people  and 
her  institutions,  and  had  adopted  them,  because  he  had  first 
approved  them.  And  so  in  early  manhood  he  had  said  in  his 
heart  after  the  manner  of  Ruth:  "Thy  people  shall  be  my 
people,  and  thy  God  my  God."  I  recall  now  the  regret  that 
revealed  itself  in  his  tones  when  he  spoke  of  the  privilege 
accorded  to  those  who  felt  free  to  go  to  the  front.  So  soon, 
therefore,  as  the  obstacle  was  providentially  removed  by  the 
closing  of  Columbia  Seminary,  and  he  was  free  to  follow  his 
martial  impulse,  he  enlisted  as  a  private  soldier  in  the  Con- 
federate Army.  And  so  the  name  "James  Woodrow"  was 
inscribed  and  forever  will  remain  on  the  Muster  Roll  of  that 
valiant  host  that  fought  under  the  banners  of  Lee  and  Jackson 
for  ithe  right  of  self-government.  But  he  was  not  to  be  per- 
mitted to  serve  exactly  as  he  wished.  His  attainments  in 
Chemistry  were  not  unknown  to  the  authorities.  And  there- 
fore he  was  detailed  from  the  ranks  to  be  placed  in  charge  of 
the  Laboratory  of  Medical  Supplies.  Only  those  of  us  who 
can  recall  the  destitution  in  our  hospitals  and  the  consequent 
sufferings  of  our  men,  with  the  high  death-rate,  can  properly 
estimate  Dr.  Woodrow's  invaluable  services  in  that  Laboratory. 
Probably  not  many  Generals  in  high  commands,  probably  not 
one  of  our  brave  regiments,  were  able  to  render  more  effective 
service  to  the  cause  that  he  loved.  Was  he  ever  entirely  satis- 
fied with  the  exchange?  I  seriously  doubt  it.  The  best 
fighting  blood  of  old  Scotland  flowed  in  his  veins,  and  he  was 
by  birth  and  instinct  a  soldier.  And  when  we  came  back  with 
defeat  written  upon  our  furled  banners,  his  comment  was: 
"The  Confederate  government  was  the  only  human  government 
that  I  ever  loved."  And  after  the  noise  of  battle  had  been 
hushed,  and  the  more  cruel  horrors  of  "Reconstruction"  were 
thrust  upon  a  prostrate  people,  none  were  more  busy  in  supply- 
ing bread  to  the  widow  and  orphan,  clothing  to  the  destitute, 
and  hope  to  the  discouraged.  His  busy  pen  was  pouring 
consolation  into  the  bleeding  hearts  of  his  brethren,  and  he  was 
among  the  foremost  in  re-opening  the  schools  of  learning  which 
w^re  to  supply  trained  thinkers  in  all  professions,  especially 
ministers  for  our  vacant  pulpits. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


S3 


But  I  must  pass  over  years  in  which  I  was  permitted  to  labor 
with  Dr.  Woodrow,  as  pastor  of  his  family  and  co-presbyter  in 
Church  courts  and  committees.  Duty  called  me  to  a  distant 
post  in  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi.  The  time  came  by  and  by 
when  I  was  re-called  to  the  Seminary,  as  a  junior  colleague  in 
the  Faculty.  Time  and  experience  had  in  a  measure  prepared 
me  the  better  to  appreciate  the  breadth  of  his  powers  and  the 
accuracy  of  his  judgment  in  widely  diverse  matters.  Especially 
did  I  come  to  see  in  him  far  more  clearly  the  man  of  affairs, 
the  administrator,  the  embodiment  of  what  Macaulay  styles  that 
most  uncommon  kind  of  sense,  called  common  sense.  My 
beloved  colleague,  Dr.  Charles  R.  Hemphill,  now  of  the  Ken- 
tucky Seminary,  often  spoke  with  me  in  private  of  the  curious 
fact  that  in  nearly  every  case  requiring  the  exercise  of  good 
judgment  or  common  sense  we  found  ourselves  constrained, 
sometimes  almost  unwillingly,  to  agree  with  Dr.  Woodrow. 
It  might  be  at  times  inconvenient  for  certain  reasons.  But  for 
this  course  there  was,  or  seemed  to  us,  no  remedy  save  by  doing 
what  we  believed  to  be  wrong  or  unwise.  And  so,  without 
withdrawing  our  confidence  in  or  affeotion  for  other  brethren, 
we  were  bound  of  course  to  do  what  we  sincerely  judged  to  be 
wise  and  right.  And  when,  under  circumstances  that  we 
regretted  and  disapproved,  the  Board  of  Directors  were 
betrayed  into  calling  on  Dr.  Woodrow  to  deliver  the  famous 
Address  on  Evolution,  we  inferred  the  operation  of  a  scheme 
which  would  probably  make  the  poor,  little  Seminary  the  focus 
and  centre  of  a  controversy  which  would  possibly  wreck  it — as 
was  the  case.  Of  our  colleague's  loyalty  to  Holy  Scripture  as 
being  the  very  word  of  God,  we  had  no  more  doubt  than  we  had 
of  his  affection  for  and  fidelity  to  the  wife  of  his  youth  and 
their  dearly  loved  children.  But  storm  signals  had  been  dis- 
played in  our  sight  for  some  time.  And  many  worthy  brethren 
in  the  Church  were  illy  prepared  for  sitting  in  judgment  on 
questions  involving  Evolution,  which  in  their  minds  was  asso- 
ciated with  the  names  of  noted  unbelievers.  Into  the  mazes 
and  labyrinths  of  the  Evolution  Controversy  there  is  no  need 
that  I  should  enter  at  this  time.  The  follies  and  shame  of  it 
are  well  known  to  many  and  accessible  to  all. 


84 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Dr.  Woodrow  had  conceived  it  to  be  his  duty,  in  preparing 
the  Address,  to  review  de  novo  the  whole  question  of  Evolution. 
And  in  so  doing  he  reached  the  conclusion  that  the  evidence  for 
the  truth  of  Evolution  as  defined  by  him  was  now  such  as  to 
make  it  "probably  true."  And  this  decision,  though  wholly 
devoid  of  any  theological  importance  whatever,  became  the 
weapon  in  the  hands  of  his  enemies  to  destroy  the  peace  of  the 
Church  and  the  life  of  the  Seminary.  Dr.  Woodrow  lived  to 
see  a  change  in  the  opinions  of  the  great  majority  of  his  breth- 
ren who  had  hitherto  opposed  him.  Without  recalling  their 
various  and  sundry  deliverances,  in  thesi  and  otherwise,  they 
admitted  him  to  be  rectus  in  ecclesia.  He  was  welcomed  in 
their  pulpits,  called  to  the  Moderator's  chair  in  church  courts, 
and  most  respectfully  solicited  for  his  wise  counsel  in  many 
trying  situations.  And  "here  endeth  the  lesson,"  so  far  as 
rectifying  the  injustice  done  a  great  leader  in  the  pacification 
of  the  age-long  conflict  of  theological  speculation  and  scientific 
speculation  is  concerned.  What  our  brethren  now  think  of 
"in  thesi  deliverances"  and  the  "Non-Contradiction"  of  Evolu- 
tion and  the  Holy  Bible  is  a  matter  of  doubtful  inference. 

As  for  the  type  of  Christian  character  which  showed  itself 
in  Dr.  Woodrow's  experience,  who  that  heard  him  can  ever 
forget  the  fervency  with  which  he  dwelt  on  the  preciousness  of 
the  covenant  with  the  believing  parent  touching  the  salvation  of 
his  children?  And  when  dearth  laid  his  hand  on  his  only  and 
beloved  son,  who  can  forget  the  Abraham-like  faith  with  which 
he  said  to  the  weeping  household :  "He  was  the  Lord's  more 
than  he  was  ours.  Let  the  Lord  have  him  according  to  his 
holy  pleasure."  And  when  one  of  his  colleagues  saw  fit  in  the 
Seminary  Conference  to  suggest  very  gently  that  some  words  of 
Dr.  Woodrow  about  the  place  of  "Religious  Feeling"  in  the 
Christian's  experience,  not  to  oppose  but  to  supplement  what 
had  been  said,  were  misleading,  who  that  was  present  can  ever 
forget  how  eagerly  the  man  of  Science  came  forward  to  say 
that  viewed  as  an  exercise  of  the  regenerated  heart,  love  was 
"indeed  all — everything.  Supreme  love  to  God,  and  love  to  our 
fellow-man  as  to  ourselves,  is  the  first  and  greatest  of  all  com- 
mandments." I  can  close  my  eyes  now,  after  the  lapse  of  more 
than  twenty-five  years  and  recall  that  eager  face  as  he  bent  over 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


85 


the  sacred  desk  to  explain :  "My  dear  colleague  is  entirely  right 
in  the  sense  intended  by  him  and  not  in  any  wise  denied  by  me : 
love  is  all — everything!'  And  let  me  add  further  that  I  have 
yet  to  find  the  Christian,  learned  or  unlearned,  minister  or  lay- 
man, who  holds  more  tenaciously  and  consistently  the  supreme 
authority  of  the  Bible,  not  only  as  containing  the  word  of  God, 
but  as  being,  in  every  part  of  it,  as  it  came  from  the  pens  of 
holy  men  who  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  very  word 
of  God. 


86 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Some  Reminiscences. 


BY  THE  REV.  DR.  EUGENE  DANIEL. 

The  request  that  I  commit  to  writing  the  impressions  of  Dr. 
Woocirow  made  upon  me  by  my  personal  acquaintance  and 
association  with  him  will  make  it  necessary  that  I  should  write 
in  an  informal  way,  almost  as  if  I  were  talking  to  a  friend  about 
a  friend.  What  I  shall  say  will  be  in  the  form  of  narrative  of 
my  personal  recollections,  with  no  studied  effort  to  avoid  the 
use  of  the  pronoun  of  ithe  first  person;  an  eifort  often  more 
indicative  of  egotism  than  would  be  the  usual  and  natural  mode 
of  expression. 

I  hope,  also,  that  it  will  be  understood  that  in  what  I  am  now 
committing  to  paper  I  am  simply  giving  recollections  and 
present  impressions.  It  may  be  that,  here  and  there,  my 
memory  could  be  convicted  of  fault  and  my  impression  could  be 
shown  to  be  erroneous.  I  am  not  going  back  to  original  docu- 
ments, to  prove  things  as  I  go  along;  nor  am  I  claiming  any 
infallible  faculty  by  which  I  can  guarantee  that  the  picture 
drawn  upon  my  mind  is  of  exact  likeness  to  the  original.  I  am 
simply  to  give  the  picture ;  and  the  reader  is  to  take  it  for  the 
more  or  less  that  it  may  be  worth. 

I  am  invited  to  write  "freely  and  fully."  This  suits  me 
precisely.  I  shall  go  a  long  way  backward  and  try  to  place  the 
reader  where  I  stood  when  my  acquaintance  with  Dr.  Woodrow 
began :  from  that  point  I  shall  try  to  signalise  the  more  import- 
ant events  which  threw  us  into  personal  relationship,  at  times, 
through  a  period  of  thirty-five  years. 

In  Southern  Mississippi,  between  Jackson  and  Vicksburg,  is 
a  dear  little  town  called  Raymond.  It  is  the  county-seat  of 
Hinds  County.  It  had  no  railroad  until  long  after  the  war. 
The  road  connecting  Meridian  and  Vicksburg  was  a  few  miles 
away,  on  one  side  of  it,  and  the  Illinois  Central,  running  down 
through  Jackson  to  New  Orleans,  was  on  the  other. 

About  the  first  of  September,  1866,  early  in  the  morning, 
while  it  was  yet  dark,  two  persons  got  into  an  old-fashioned 
hack  at  the  home  of  the  pastor  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in 
Raymond,  to  go  over  to  Terrell,  a  station  on  the  Illinois  Central. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


87 


One  of  these  two  was  a  young  man  of  a  calm,  serene  face,  who 
had  been  a  soldier  in  the  Confederate  army,  had  engaged  in 
teaching  some  months  after  the  war,  and  had  then  applied 
himself  heroically  to  study  in  the  Raymond  Academy,  in  order 
that  he  might  enter  college.  The  other  was  a  boy,  about 
sixteen,  many  years  the  junior  of  the  man;  as  yet  in  a  "round- 
about" coat.  I  was  the  boy  and  the  pastor  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  in  Raymond  was  my  father.  My  companion  was  John 
J.  Read.  We  had  just  finished  our  academic  studies  under  that 
eminent  educator  in  Southern  Mississippi,  Professor  D.  W.  C. 
Tillotson.  We  were  bound  for  Oakland  College,  to  enter  it  as 
candidates  for  the  Gospel  ministry.  Can  I  ever  forget  that 
morning's  sunrise  as  we  beheld  it  from  the  eminence  of  the 
famous  "Cooper's  Wells,"  about  four  miles  from  Raymond! 
I  was  homesick  already ! 

But  the  hack  rattled  along.  We  got  to  Terrell  in  time  to 
catch  the  southbound  train.  A  few  stations  were  passed,  and 
soon  we  were  at  Hazlehurst  and  in  the  home  of  my  father's 
warm  friend  and  ministerial  co-worker,  Rev.  C.  W.  Trawick, 
pastor  of  the  Presbyterian  church,  and  afterwards  pastor  of  the 
Canal  Street  Presbyterian  church,  New  Orleans ;  pastor  and 
martyr,  for  he  died  at  his  post,  a  victim  of  yellow  fever. 

We  were  at  Hazlehurst,  but  how  were  we  to  get  any  farther  ? 
It  was  forty  miles  to  Port  Gibson,  and  thence  eighteen  miles  to 
Oakland.    And  there  was  no  railroad. 

I  never  see  the  names  of  the  "Hardies"  in  the  advertising 
columns  of  the  Southzvestem  Presbyterian  without  thinking  of 
the  great  kindness  of  the  member — probably  the  head — of  that 
family,  who  sped  us  along  our  way,  in  his  comfortable  spring- 
wagon,  behind  a  pair  of  handsome  mules.  Hot  and  dusty  was 
the  long  day's  travel.  But  at  night  we  had  sweet  rest  in  the 
home  of  Dr.  Robert  Rice,  so  long  pastor  of  the  church  at  Port 
Gibson,  and  so  eminent  in  service  at  the  Southwestern  Presby- 
terian University.  The  next  day,  at  noon,  we  drove  into  the 
campus  at  Oakland  College.  My  impression  is  that  we  saw  a 
young  man  of  smooth,  refined  face  and  quiet  manner,  almost 
the  only  person  walking  on  the  nearly  deserted  grounds.  We 
afterwards  had  a  very  intimate  and  delightful  acquaintance 
with  this  high-bred  gentleman.    We  obtained  it  in  the  Latin 


88 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


class.  The  individual  proved  to  be  Professor  George  L.  Petrie. 
now,  and  for  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  past,  the  beloved 
pastor  of  the  Presbyterian  church  at  Charlottesville,  Va. 

Oakland  College,  famous  before  the  war,  was  in  a  mighty 
struggle  for  resurrection  and  life.  For  two  years  the  unequal 
conflict  went  on  against  poverty  and  the  awful  misrule  of  the 
dark  days  of  Reconstruction.  But  doom  was  at  hand.  The 
Church  institution  could  not  live  without  money.  At  the  end 
of  our  second  session,  the  doors  were  closed.  The  Presbytery 
of  Mississippi  advised  us  to  go  forthwith  to  the  Theological 
Seminary  at  Columbia,  S.  C.  And  Oakland  College,  under 
radical  rule,  became  "Alcorn  University"  for  negroes. 

Read  and  I  had  been  room-mates  for  two  years.  He  was  a 
good  balance-wheel  for  me,  and  I  suppose  my  father  knew  that 
when  he  sent  us  off  together.  We  loved  each  other  and 
resolved  to  be  room-mates  in  the  Seminary. 

This  minute,  memory  carries  me  back  to  our  arriving  at  the 
Charleston  Depot  in  Columbia.  How  well  I  recall  the  economy, 
in  those  times,  with  which  we  drove  the  bargain  with  the  old 
negro  man  who  was  to  take  us  and  our  little  baggage  from  the 
station  to  the  Seminary,  and  our  amused  amazement  that  he 
knew  nothing  about  "two-bits"  and  "four-bits,"  words  in  such 
general  use  in  our  State. 

We  were  eager  to  be  at  the  Seminary  "in  time."  We  were 
a  week  ahead  of  time.  And  for  this,  I  think  I  was  to  blame. 
What  boy  of  nineteen  does  not  love  change  and  adventure  ?  I 
prodded  up  my  companion,  and  we  found  the  dear  old  Semi- 
nary as  lonely  as  its  mournful  pines  sounded.  But  blessed, 
sainted  Dr.  Howe  found  us  out,  and  for  days  made  us  at  home 
in  his  house  and  at  his  table.  He  had  not  then  begun  the 
session's  work,  and  he  seemed  to  enjoy  sitting  with  us  and 
telling  us  about  Columbia  and  Seminary  life.  How  far  up 
above  us  he  seemed  to  be!  And  how  utterly  he  came  right 
down  to  us !  What  verdant,  foolish  questions  the  boy  of  nine- 
teen asked ;  and  how  Dr.  Howe's  little  blush  as  he  answered  so 
sweetly  was  almost  as  if  he  had  imputed  the  boy's  ignorance  to 
himself.  Will  the  reader  believe  it?  When  Dr.  Howe  in 
conversation  mentioned  Dr.  Thornwell,  I  actually  perked  up 
and  asked  him,  "And  who  was  Dr.  Thornwell?"    You  see, 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


89 


having  been  reared  in  Mississippi,  I  thought  the  only  man  was 
Dr.  B.  M.  Palmer.  That  I  can  tell  this  now  is  superlative 
evidence  of  the  irrepressible  garrulousness  of  coming  age. 

It  was  during  this  week  of  waiting  that  I  attended,  for  the 
first  time,  the  prayer-meeting  of  the  Columbia  church.  Dr. 
Howe  conducted  it.  We  met  in  one  of  the  rooms  of  the  middle 
building  of  the  Seminary.  Only  a  few  were  present.  Dr. 
Howe  sat,  and  read  the  last  verses  of  the  8th  chapter  of 
Romans,  and,  still  sitting,  began  to  talk.  How  that  prayer- 
meeting  devotional  meditation,  expressed  almost  as  if  the  vener- 
able saint  were  in  soliloquy,  has  lingered  in  memory  amidst  all 
life's  trials  and  sorrows  for  the  past  forty  years ! 

At  last  the  session  opened.  The  Professors  at  that  time 
were  Doctors  Howe,  Plumer,  Adger,  and  Woodrow.  To  these, 
two  years  later,  was  added  Dr.  Joseph  R.  Wilson.  I  sat 
reverently  at  the  feet  of  them  all ;  I  loved  them  all.  To-day,  in 
my  mountain  home,  far  away  from  scenes  of  ecclesiastical 
differences  and  very  remote  from  the  times  of  excited  debate, 
I  delight  to  think  of  all  those  men  who  were  so  true  and  good  to 
me,  who  never  gave  me  a  frown,  who  never  failed  to  give  me 
encouragement,  and  from  not  one  of  whom  did  I  fail  to  receive 
lessons  which  have  served  me  well  for  my  whole  ministry  of 
two-score  years.  Breathing  to  God  a  silent  thanksgiving  for 
them  all,  I  now  narrow  the  stream  of  this  informal  narrative, 
and  turn  to  the  one  who  is  more  immediately  the  subject  of  this 
reminiscent  writing. 

My  first  recollection  of  Dr.  Woodrow  presents  him  in  one  of 
his  holiest  and  sweetest  relationships.  As  I  remember,  I  was 
seated  on  the  door-step  of  the  building  in  which  I  roomed,  just 
after  supper,  in  the  gloaming,  when  there  passed  along  the  path 
to  the  chapel  in  the  middle  building  a  somewhat  tall  man,  in  a 
frock  coat,  and  at  his  side  was  a  woman  not  nearly  so  tall. 
The  thing  which  particularly  attracted  my  attention  was  the 
animation  with  which  they  were  speaking  to  each  other,  and  the 
pleased,  happy  way  of  his  looking  down  toward  her  and  of  her 
upward  look  to  him,  as  she  tried  to  keep  step  with  him  while 
they  were  briskly  skirting  along.  To  one  of  the  students  near 
me,  I  think  it  was  John  S.  Moore,  I  said,  "Who  are  they?" 
His  answer  was,  "Dr.  and  Mrs.  Woodrow."    Right  there  I 


90 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


struck  one  of  the  first  things  that  drew  me  to  Dr.  Woodrow; 
his  sweet  comradery  with  his  wife  and  his  unfailing  capacity 
to  draw  to  him  and  to  hold  the  respect  and  confidence  of 
woman,  and  especially  of  the  one  woman  who  knew  him  better 
than  anybody  else  on  earth. 

The  first  Seminary  exercise  in  which  I  came  into  touch  with 
Dr.  Woodrow,  or  rather,  in  which  he  came  into  decided  touch 
with  me,  was  an  affair  of  delivering  some  kind  of  declamations. 
I  have  forgotten  all  about  my  performance  save  this  one  thing. 
I  was  a  great  stickler  for  carefulness  of  enunciation.  And  I 
was  growing  into  false  emphasis  of  almost  every  syllable  in  a 
word,  like  Georgia's  Governor  who  would  say  "judgment." 
After  I  had  spoken,  my  fellow-students,  nearly  all  of  whom  had 
passed  through  the  war  and  were  bearded  men,  patted  the  child 
on  the  head  most  encouragingly,  and  the  Professors  were 
benevolent  also.  When  Dr.  Woodrow's  time  came,  he  followed 
in  the  same  strain  for  quite  a  while.  He  then  paused  a  second 
and  said  "But" — in  a  fine,  curt  tone ;  and  the  old  students  knew 
my  time  had  come.  In  about  six  words,  he  imitated  to  mimicry 
my  fault.  It  was  a  long  time  before  I  cured  the  habit,  if  I  ever 
did,  but  I  never  forgot  the  lesson. 

Another  occasion  of  similar  experience  was  a  Students' 
Debate  before  the  Faculty.  I  forget  who  my  opponent  was. 
As  we  came  along  alphabetically,  it  might  have  been  Atkinson, 
or  Brimm,  or  Dickey,  all  seniors  nearly  in  middle  life,  or  it 
might  have  been  DuBose.  The  question  was  as  to  whether 
war  was  ever  justifiable:  and  I  was  vehemently  on  the  wrong 
side.  After  the  students  had  done  riddling  me,  Dr.  Woodrow 
finished  me.  Now  will  you,  can  you  believe,  that  I  determined 
to  go  straight  from  the  debate  to  his  rooms  (he  was  then  living 
with  his  family  in  one  of  the  buildings)  and  show  him  how 
completely  he  had  misunderstood  me?  Did  I  go?  Most  posi- 
tively, yes.  But  when  I  had  called  for  him,  I  felt  myself  cold 
all  over.  And  when  he  came  toward  me,  I  could  hardly  believe 
he  was  the  same  man.  Kindness  and  cordiality  were  all  over 
his  face,  and  he  drew  me  in ;  my  present  impression  is  that  I 
met  some  of  his  sweet  children  right  then.  I  may  have  alluded 
to  my  mission,  but  I  know  he  soon  had  me  turned  into  general 
conversation,  and  I  forgot  my  misery,  and  went  away  as  who 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


n 


might  say,  "I  came,  I  saw,  he  conquered."  The  homesick  but 
pugilistic  boy  had  been  given  a  half-hour's  open  social  enjoy- 
ment in  the  family  of  one  of  the  Professors !  Wasn't  that  a 
thing  to  be  remembered  a  lifetime? 

I  was  struck  with  one  peculiarity  of  Dr.  Woodrow's  way  of 
conducting  evening  prayers  at  the  Seminary.  This  lay  in  the 
part  of  Scripture  that  he  selected  for  the  reading.  As  a  rule, 
he  chose  passages  which,  it  seemed  to  me,  no  other  man  would 
have  taken.  Generally  he  managed  to  read  an  entire  book  of 
the  Bible,  in  order,  in  the  course  of  the  week  for  which  he  was 
leader.  This  caused  him  to  use  much  the  minor  prophets  and 
the  shorter  Epistles.  At  first,  I  did  not  like  it.  But  soon  I 
came  to  see  that  the  custom  led  him  to  read  many  passages 
which  are  never  used  at  all  in  public  service,  and  that  the  stu- 
dent who  followed  him  through  the  week  had  obtained  in 
completeness  a  fresh  reading  of  an  entire  book  of  the  Bible. 
He  also  appeared  to  be  very  fond  of  singing  the  Psalms.  He 
would  usually  have  one  or  more  sung  at  every  service.  The 
general  impression  made  upon  my  mind  by  his  whole  conduct 
of  the  meeting  for  worship  at  the  hour  of  closing  day  was  to  the 
effect  that  an  extremely  busy,  hard-working  man  had  dropped 
everything  to  hear  what  his  God  would  say  to  him,  and  to  make 
known  his  own  wants  to  God ;  and  in  this  service  he  would  take 
full  time,  weigh  well  his  words,  use  no  exaggeration,  but  deal 
with  God  in  sincerity  and  truth,  without  cant  and  without 
hypocrisy,  with  no  attempt  at  rhetorical  fluency. 

In  the  discussions  of  questions  debated  by  the  students,  or  by 
the  Faculty  in  their  presence,  Dr.  Woodrow's  power  was  cer- 
tainly preeminent.  To  what  was  it  due?  Wherein  lay  the 
secret  of  his  undeniable  capacity  for  saying  what  impressed  so 
many  as  "the  last  word"  ?  It  would  be  difficult  to  answer  that 
question.  I  can  only  "show  mine  opinion."  More  than  any 
man  I  ever  knew,  he  had  the  power  of  discrimination  which 
enabled  him  to  eliminate,  it  might  be  a  dozen  extraneous  things 
that  closely  resembled  the  point  in  dispute,  and  then  to  lay  bare 
the  true  issue  in  such  simplicity  that  the  very  statement  of  it 
was  its  sufficient  discussion.  When  he  had  framed  his  defini- 
tions and  had  set  off  to  one  side  his  exclusions,  the  argument 
was  practically  at  an  end.    The  statement  of  the  real  question 


92 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


in  proper  form  gave  the  answer.  Dr.  Dabney  shattered  a  rock 
with  one  blow  of  a  sledge-hammer.  Dr.  Woodrow,  with  deli- 
cate surgery,  felt  around  with  a  keen  knife  until  he  had  exposed 
the  vital  artery  of  error,  and  a  mere  turn  of  the  little  blade 
instantly  did  the  rest.  It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  man 
whose  pet  error  lay  slain  by  such  dexterity  did  not  always  feel 
comfortable  about  the  mortal  wound.  I  am  sure  that  while 
Dr.  Woodrow's  use  of  sarcasm  was  not  at  all  times  without 
irritation  to  his  opponents  in  discussion,  the  really  exasperating 
thing  to  men  of  pride  of  opinion — like  all  of  us — was,  unan- 
swerableness,  the  simple  inability  to  know  what  ito  say  in  reply. 
This  kicking  against  the  pricks  when  one  just  has  to  be  con- 
vinced against  his  will  is  altogether  disturbing  to  serenity. 

From  this  place  I  can  make  natural  and  easy  transition  to  my 
impressions  of  Dr.  Woodrow  as  I  received  his  instruction  in  the 
class-room. 

The  reader  will  bear  in  mind  what  I  have  said  as  to  my 
education  at  Oakland.  I  went  to  the  Seminary  knowing  abso- 
lutely nothing,  except  matters  of  general  knowledge,  concerning 
Natural  Science.  I  was  simply  not  fitted  by  training  or  acquisi- 
tion for  Dr.  Woodrow's  department.  I  am  inclined  to  suspect 
that  a  considerable  number  of  my  fellow-students  were  in  the 
same  unenviable  predicament.  I  am  in  it  yet.  I  had  all  I 
could  do  to  study  Hebrew  and  take  up  extra  work  in  Meta- 
physics, Logic,  Ethics,  and  teach  an  hour  each  day  to  help  to 
pay  expenses. 

However,  I  gave  to  Dr.  Woodrow's  Lectures  careful  atten- 
tion. Much  in  the  way  of  scientific  knowledge,  when  he  was 
slowly  and  cautiously  amassing  his  facts,  I  could  not  under- 
stand; but  it  is  also  true  that,  in  a  measure,  he  took  into 
consideration  the  limitations  of  his  pupils,  and  explained  as  he 
went  along.  The  result  was  that  I  got  a  little  science;  and 
from  him  and  others  I  obtained  about  the  usual  knowledge  of 
Theology  imparted  in  a  Seminary.  But  my  chief  benefit 
received  from  Dr.  Woodrow  lay  in  certain  fixed,  definite,  broad 
principles,  not  as  to  Natural  Science,  but  as  to  the  relation 
between  the  two  Books,  both  of  God's  writing,  namely,  Nature 
and  the  Holy  Scriptures. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


93 


I  know  that  as  a  youth  sitting  at  this  teacher's  feet  the 
strongest  impression  that  I  received  was  that  the  Bible  is  the 
inerrant  word  of  God.  The  all-important  thing  is  to  get  its 
true  meaning.  That  once  obtained,  assent  must  be  yielded  as 
to  the  authority  of  God  himself.  The  whole  teaching  is  to  be 
studied,  accepted,  revered.  Nothing  of  the  Bible's  revelation 
is  to  be  slighted.  But  the  teacher  also  insisted  with  iteration 
and  emphasis  that  there  must  be  no  substitutions  and  no  addi- 
tions. Human  theories,  speculations,  interpretations,  had  no 
infallibility.  Scientific  men  might  err,  had  erred,  and  would 
err  again.  These  things  could  not  be  denied  concerning  reli- 
gionists. But  whatever  differences  might  arise  in  matters  of 
interpretation,  Truth,  wherever  and  by  whomsoever  ascertained, 
must  be  self-consistent,  for  all  Truth  comes  from  God.  This 
is  the  substance  of  what  I  got.  The  rest  of  it  was  a  long  array 
of  historical  facts  indisputably  establishing  and  glaringly  illus- 
trating the  awful  peril  of  false  and  intolerant  interpretations 
and  additions,  whether  to  God's  word  in  stone  or  God's  word 
in  human  language. 

The  effect  of  this  teaching  upon  me,  in  all  my  ministry,  has 
been  to  make  me  strive  hard  to  get  the  real  meaning  of  the 
Bible,  and  to  be  honest  in  giving  to  the  people  the  true  teachings 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  I  left  the  Seminary  under  the  full 
belief  m  the  plenary  and  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Bible,  as  the 
only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  To  no  Professor  at 
Columbia  am  I  more  indebted  for  my  profound  and  unalterable 
convictions  upon  that  subject  than  to  Dr.  Woodrow.  I  received 
the  impression,  not  only  from  the  substance  and  the  manner  of 
his  teaching  in  his  own  department,  but  from  all  my  personal 
association  with  him  and  all  that  I  heard  from  his  lips  in  all  the 
exercises  of  the  Seminary  throughout  the  entire  course  of  three 
years  from  1868  to  1871. 

Leaving  the  Seminary  with  these  profound  impressions,  the 
reader  may  imagine  with  what  amazement  subsequent  occur- 
rences broke  upon  my  startled  attention.  This  carries  me  into 
some  reminiscences  of  Dr.  Woodrow  in  Church  life  outside  the 
Seminary  walls. 

The  coming  of  the  close  of  the  senior  year  in  a  Theological 
Seminary  is  a  time  of  great  anxiety  to  the  student.    This  is 


94 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


true  for  many  reasons.  It  is  especially  true  if,  before  that 
time,  the  young  candidate  has  not  received  a  call  to  labor  in  any 
particular  field.  And  my  call  was  long  in  coming.  I  had  made 
but  one  or  two  attempts  to  preach ;  for  instance,  to  the  negroes 
in  Columbia  and,  once  or  twice,  to  the  people  in  the  destitute 
region  about  Killian's  Mill,  eleven  miles  from  the  city.  As 
week  after  week  rolled  away,  and  the  members  of  my  class 
talked  about  where  they  were  going,  and  what  they  would  do, 
an  awful  sense  of  loneliness  came  over  me.  I  did  not  know 
whether  I  could  preach  at  all,  and  it  became  increasingly  uncer- 
tain whether  any  church  would  let  me  try. 

When  this  feeling  had  deepened  almost  into  despair,  I 
received  a  letter  bearing  the  post-mark  "Camden,  Ark.,"  and  the 
purport  of  it  was  that  the  church  at  that  place  was  without  a 
minister,  and  that  through  Dr.  Woodrow  information  had  been 
obtained  that  I  was  a  student  who  had  not  made  my  plans  for 
work.  Then  followed  a  definite  proposal  to  come  to  the  field 
as  minister  of  the  congregation.  How  far  away  Arkansas  then 
seemed  to  me !  How  much  I  needed  advice !  But  from  whom 
should  I  seek  it? 

Well,  the  letter  mentioned  Dr.  Woodrow.  Let  me  go  to 
him !  I  went.  It  all  comes  back  to  me  so  vividly  across  these 
thirty-eight  years ! 

I  found  him  in  his  office.  As  usual,  he  was  very  busy.  He 
looked  tired.  But  I  instantly  got  what  I  asked  for.  He  laid 
aside  everything  else,  and  gave  me  his  interested  and  undivided 
attention. 

As  is  usual  in  church  work,  a  woman  was  at  the  bottom  of 
the  whole  matter.  And  a  nobler  woman  never  lived.  Origi- 
nally from  Roswell,  Georgia,  she  had  married  Henry  Merrell, 
who  afterwards  wrote  so  much  and  so  well  as  the  "Back- 
country  Elder,"  the  first  elder  that  ever  represented  the  South- 
ern Presbyterian  Church  in  the  "Pan-Presbyterian  Council." 
They  had  moved  from  Georgia  to  Arkansas  long  years  before 
this  interview  of  mine  with  Dr.  Woodrow.  And  when  Mrs. 
Merrell,  longing  for  a  regular  minister  in  her  little  church  at 
Camden,  sought  information  as  to  securing  one,  what  more 
natural  than  that  she  should  write  to  the  Professor  at  Columbia 
who  had  gone  from  her  own  State?    Dr.  Woodrow  had 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


95 


answered  her  letter,  and  upon  this  correspondence  the  church  at 
Camden  had  written  to  me.  How  much  sometimes  depends 
upon  the  writing  of  a  letter!  How  much  often  turns  upon  a 
prompt  reply ! 

As  I  write,  I  am  back  again  at  that  table  in  that  office.  The 
letter  of  Mrs.  Merrell  to  Dr.  Woodrow,  produced  by  him.  is 
read  to  me,  and  every  point  in  it  noted  and  talked  over.  The 
newness  of  the  country,  the  distance  to  the  work,  the  smallness 
of  the  membership,  the  population  of  the  town  (3,000),  the 
location  at  the  head  of  navigation  on  the  Ouachita  River,  the 
probabilities  as  to  health.  I  can  hear  Dr.  Woodrow  now  as  he 
said,  in  his  sharp,  incisive  way,  "It  isn't  heaven."  But  the 
main  facts  were  that  here  was  a  church  needing  a  preacher,  that 
I  hoped  Christ  was  calling  me  to  preach,  and  my  license  would 
read,  "Wherever  God  in  his  providence."  Dr.  Woodrow,  in  his 
usual  way,  put  clearly  the  considerations  on  both  sides,  and 
then  left  me  face  to  face  with  my  own  responsibility  in  settling 
the  matter  of  my  ministerial  duty.  The  final  issue  of  a  ques- 
tion of  duty,  I  never  knew  him  to  try  to  influence  any  man  in 
deciding.  One  of  his  most  prominently  marked  characteristics 
was  that  of  refraining  from  influencing  anybody  to  determine 
his  conduct  by  Dr.  Woodrow's  opinions  rather  than  his  own. 
The  keynote  of  this  characteristic  was  struck  in  this  my  first 
important  consultation  with  him,  and  all  the  music  of  my  subse- 
quent intercourse  was  set  to  that  note  upon  that  key.  When  in 
after  years  clouds  gathered  over  him  and  storms  blew  around 
him,  and  anxious  friends  would  seek  to  hold  communication 
with  him,  it  was  always  the  case  that  they,  and  not  he,  did  the 
seeking.  To  such  an  extent  did  he  carry  this  thing,  that  it 
seemed  coldness  and  irresponsiveness.  He  was  a  man  who 
settled  matters  of  duty  for  himself,  and  he  wanted  every  other 
man  to  do  that  identical  thing.  He  was  willing  to  give  all  the 
light  he  could ;  he  accepted  all  he  could  get ;  but  the  final  deter- 
mination of  duty  he  neither  asked  nor  gave.  As  matter  of  fact, 
the  students  under  him  caught  that  spirit  from  him.  I  never 
knew  one  of  his  students  who  did  not  act  upon  his  own  inde- 
pendent manliness  even  in  dealing  with  Dr.  Woodrow  himself. 
He  abhorred  a  sycophant. 


9i> 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


I  went  to  Camden,  Arkansas,  in  June,  1871,  and  there  lived 
as  nearly  in  "heaven"  as  is  ever  given  to  a  young  preacher  on 
earth.  I  got  only  $400  in  money.  But  oh!  the  sweetness  of 
my  home !  How  stately  and  handsome  and  gracious,  how  true 
to  her  church,  how  kind  and  loving  to  her  young  minister,  that 
Georgia  woman,  with  her  beautiful  gray  hair  and  her  strong 
face!  How  broad  the  information  of  her  husband  who  had 
more  than  once  travelled  in  the  Isles  and  on  the  Continent,  who 
had  books  upon  books,  and  bought  for  me  the  whole  library  of 
a  deceased  minister,  set  it  up  in  the  hall,  and  told  me  to  get  to 
work ;  who  taught  me  so  many  things  and  helped  me  to  wnlearn 
so  many  others ;  who  sometimes  gave  the  friend's  faithful 
wound,  but  never  failed  to  encourage  by  helpful  sympathy  and 
unfaltering  loyalty.  Three  years  and  a  half  passed  quickly  by. 
Then  came  the  call  to  Memphis ;  and  in  dread  and  fear  I 
obeyed.  And  as  the  now  sainted  Georgia  woman  and  other 
weeping  ones  stood  with  us  upon  the  deck  of  the  boat  which 
was  to  carry  us  away,  I  looked  far  up  the  steep  bank,  and, 
under  a  tree,  all  alone,  as  if  he  wanted  no  one  near,  stood  my 
Elder,  to  catch  the  last  glimpse  of  us  as  we  slipped  from  the 
landing.    And  silhouetted  there,  I  see  him  yet. 

"Green  be  the  turf  above  thee, 
Friend  of  my  better  days." 

After  my  going  to  Memphis,  long  years  passed  before  I  again 
had  any  direct  relation  to  Dr.  Woodrow.  From  1875  to  1884, 
we  seldom  met  and  most  rarely  had  any  correspondence.  I 
took  the  Southern  Presbyterian  and  the  Review.  I  kept  up 
with  all  his  printed  speeches,  his  articles,  his  discussions  in  the 
church  courts.  I  saw  him  two  or  three  times  when  I  passed 
through  Columbia.  But  the  only  time  I  met  him  in  any  eccle- 
siastical capacity  was  in  the  General  Assembly  which  met  in  the 
First  church,  New  Orleans,  1877.  And  there  happened  a  thing 
which  makes  me  almost  shiver  even  now  at  the  recollection  of 
my  youthful  temerity. 

A  certain  Report  on  Home  Missions  was  before  the  body 
and,  as  I  remember,  some  strong  strictures  had  been  indulged  in 
upon  certain  Presbyteries;  and  Dr.  Woodrow  had  made  a 
telling  speech  against  the  right  to  use  these  reflections.  His 
feelings  were  plainly  in  what  he  said.    Two  or  three  other 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


or 


speeches,  pro  and  con,  followed.  It  was  my  first  Assembly, 
and  I  got  excited,  and  felt  around  for  a  shillalah,  and  jumped 
into  the  discussion.  After  I  got  upon  my  feet,  I  looked  about 
five  pews  ahead  of  me,  and  there  sat  Dr.  Woodrow,  turned 
almost  around  in  his  pew,  and  his  face  lifted  straight  to  mine, 
as  I  was  launching  out  against  restricting  the  committees  while 
they  were  stirring  up  the  Presbyteries.  I  shall  never  forget  my 
feelings  at  that  instant.  The  memory  of  all  the  Professorial 
castigations  that  I  ever  received  in  the  Seminary  came  over  me 
as  mere  circumstantials  in  comparison  with  what  I  might  expect 
now.  But  I  clattered  along,  discoursed  about  Church  unity, 
and  the  necessity  of  realising  it  through  a  central  agency,  and 
so  on.  When  I  sat  down,  I  said  to  myself,  "Boy,  your  hour  has 
come."  And  when  Dr.  Woodrow  turned  in  his  seat,  I  felt  as  if 
I  would  like  to  shut  my  eyes  and  stop  my  ears.  But  he  treated 
me  to  a  silence,  in  public  and  in  private,  just  thirty-two  years 
long!    He  left  me  "on  the  wonder,"  and  here  I  am  yet. 

Before  passing  to  some  relationships  between  Dr.  Woodrow 
and  me  for  several  years,  starting  with  1884,  it  seems  best  that 
I  should  try  to  give  the  reader  a  true  impression  of  the  spirit  in 
which  I  shall  write  the  pages  that  follow. 

I  am  not  foolish  enough  to  be  attempting  to  revive  any  issues. 
I  am  not  undertaking  any  discussion.  I  am  not  conscious  of 
any  feeling  but  of  calm  good-will  and  fraternity.  I  am  simply 
trying  to  set  forth  my  own  personal  impression  of  a  man  whom 
I  honor,  telling  what  he  seemed  to  me.  As  one  might  sit  in 
later  afternoon,  while  the  sun  is  dropping  westward,  and  recall 
the  events  of  a  stirring  day,  just  to  recall  them,  so  would  I  now 
bring  back  some  correspondence  with  Dr.  Woodrow,  and  a  very 
few  meetings  between  him  and  me,  just  to  show  how  he  seemed 
to  me,  whether  he  so  seemed  to  others  or  not. 

Seated  in  the  General  Assembly  at  Vicksburg  in  1884,  toward 
the  close  of  the  sessions  I  think,  I  was  languidly  attending  to 
the  reading  of  the  Report  on  Theological  Seminaries.  One 
part  of  the  Report  commended  the  diligence  of  the  Board  of 
Columbia  Seminary  in  requesting  the  Professors  to  make  known 
their  views  on  points  vital  in  our  Theology,  in  order  that  all 
might  know  that  no  insidious  errors  were  being  taught.  I 
should  have  paid  very  little  attention  to  this,  had  I  not  noticed 


7— w 


98 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


that  it  seemed  to  cause  a  little  flutter  amongst  a  few  not  far 
from  the  Moderator ;  and  my  ear  caught  a  question  something 
like:  "Who  is  that  aimed  at?"  Very  quickly  that  part  of  the 
Report  was  recommitted,  and  when  it  returned,  it  commended 
the  diligence  of  the  Directors  in  requiring  "the  Perkins  Pro- 
fessor" to  make  known  his  views,  etc. 

Now  let  the  reader  remember  how  Dr.  Woodrow's  fidelity  to 
the  Bible,  his  horror  of  adding  to  it  or  taking  from  it,  had 
impressed  me  while  a  student,  and  it  can  easily  be  seen  how  this 
thing  shocked  me.  The  Assembly  appeared  to  be  holding  its 
breath.  There  was  hardly  any  discussion.  The  action  was 
taken.  There  was  but  one  name  quietly  recorded  in  dissent. 
The  occurrence  proved  to  be  the  first  cannon  in  the  long  engage- 
ment which  for  years  convulsed  the  Church. 

While  the  Assembly  was  yet  sitting,  I  opened  a  correspond- 
ence with  Dr.  Woodrow,  of  which  I  believe  the  whole  has  been 
published,  with  his  permission.  One  of  his  favorite  sayings 
was :  "I  have  no  secrets." 

It  is  no  part  of  my  purpose  to  do  more  than  to  give  sincerely 
and  candidly  the  impression  which  this  correspondence  pro- 
duced upon  my  mind. 

I  do  not  recall  that  his  letters  to  me  contained  any  sentiment 
of  irritation  or  arrogance  or  intolerance.  The  thing  that  struck 
me  as  most  prominent  was  his  slowness  to  believe  that  he  had 
any  need  to  look  for  unfavorable  action,  or  that  the  Vicksburg 
Assembly  had  intended  any.  He  at  first,  in  answer  to  my 
opening  of  the  correspondence,  insisted  upon  construing  the 
Assembly's  action  as  an  expression  of  approval  and  confidence. 
If  he  ever  changed  his  mind  about  that,  I  do  not  recall  his 
having  told  me  so,  although  he  finally  agreed  that  individuals 
had  not  intended  any  such  compliment.  I  honestly  believe  he 
had  laid  so  little  stress  upon  Evolution  in  his  class-teaching,  if 
he  had  placed  any  at  all  upon  it,  that  he  could  not  realise  to 
himself  at  all  the  possibility  of  any  general  or  very  antagonistic 
action  about  it.  I  infer  this  from  the  fact  that  he  had  never 
been  a  man  given  to  fanatical  parade  on  hobbies,  scientific  or 
other,  and  he  had  always  been  prudent  in  not  attempting  to  stir 
up  the  Church  prematurely  in  those  transition  periods  of 
interpretations  where  errors  of  exegesis  must  be  corrected  in 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


99 


order  to  fidelity  to  truth,  whether  in  the  Book  of  Nature  or  in 
the  Bible.  He  knew,  as  any  practical  man  must  know  from 
history,  that  the  occupant  of  the  chair  which  he  held,  a  chair 
instituted  by  the  Church  herself  (whether  wisely  or  unwisely), 
could  oftentimes  convulse  the  body  of  ministers  and  members 
by  his  rashness,  to  say  nothing  of  his  own  risk  of  Professorial 
decapitation.  He  firmly  believed  that  it  was  his  business  to 
edify,  not  to  agitate  and  destroy,  and  he  laid  such  comparatively 
little  stress  upon  the  evolution  of  Adam's  body,  and  so  much 
upon  the  importance  of  all  the  other  work  which  he  had  in 
hand,  that  he  seemed  not  to  comprehend  that  he  was  on  the 
verge  of  a  tremendous  upheaval.*  He  concluded  his  corre- 
spondence with  me  by  simply  saying:  "You  will  soon  have  an 
opportunity  of  seeing  my  views."  He  added  something  to  the 
effect  that  it  seemed  hard  that  he  could  not  go  on  with  his  work, 
of  which  he  had  so  much  to  do.  He  wrote  exactly  like  a  man 
who  never  would  have  driven  anybody  to  desperation  about 
Evolution  either  one  way  or  the  other,  if  he  had  been  permitted, 
as  Kentuckians  and  West  Virginians  say,  to  "go  his  own  gait." 
In  all  this  I  certainly  did  not  get  the  impression  that  he  was 
hiding  or  dodging.  I  would  as  soon  have  expected  a  thing  of 
that  kind  of  yonder  old  "Cold  Knob"  mountain. 

When  the  Address  was  published,  I  read  it,  of  course.  I  am 
frank  to  say  that  it  did  not  give  me  any  especial  horrors.  I 
was  not  capable  of  judging  of  its  scientific  inductions.  I  could 
see  that  its  conclusions  were  set  forth  as  only  "probably"  true. 
And  I  had  not  time  to  waste  on  probabilities,  while  in  my 
ministry  I  had  to  do  with  so  many  live  and  dead  certainties.  I 
saw,  too,  that  about  the  only  scientific  part  of  it  affecting 
Scripture  was  as  to  the  human  body,  and  how  God  made  it. 
And  I  had  never  lost  one  moment  of  sleep  over  that  matter.  I 
was  perfectly  willing  to  let  God  do  that  thing  his  own  way, 

*Dr.  Woodrow  foresaw  the  coming  storm  with  perfect  clearness.  While 
he  was  preparing  his  Address,  all  the  members  of  his  family  would 
gather  from  time  to  time  in  one  room,  and  he  would  read  to  them  what 
he  had  written  and  discuss  the  various  points  with  them.  And  he  would 
frequently  say:  "This  will  raise  a  storm,  but  I  cannot  help  it.  They  ask 
me  for  my  views,  and  I  must  give  them  honestly." 

But  there  was  one  thing  it  was  years  before  he  would  believe,  and  that 
was  that  he  had  bitter  personal  enemies  who  seized  eagerly  upon  his 
Address  as  the  means  by  which  to  stir  up  the  Church  against  him. — 
Editor. 


100 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


whatever  it  might  be.  My  Bible  told  me  that  he  had  made  it. 
I  believed  that  and  stopped.  I  shrewdly  suspect  that,  as  a 
Teacher,  Dr.  Woodrow  did  not  care  very  solicitously  anything 
about  a  Preacher's  opinion  of  the  modus. 

There  was  one  thing  in  that  address  which  forever  convinced 
me  that  Dr.  Woodrow  could  be  trusted  implicitly  to  follow  the 
Bible  in  its  plain  teaching,  whatever  that  teaching  might  be. 
This  one  thing  drew  the  issue  squarely;  and,  if  Dr.  Woodrow 
had  not  been  under  divinely  given  loyalty  to  God's  word,  when 
he  came  to  that  issue  he  must  have  been  bound  to  flicker.  For 
he  must  have  known  that  the  issue  largely  involved  his  scien- 
tific reputation,  very  extensive  and  made  so  by  the  toil  of  his 
life.  He  must  have  been  aware  that  right  before  him  was 
much  of  proud  scientific  scorn  and  ridicule;  that  every  critic 
would  seek  to  find  here  the  opening  through  which  to  thrust 
his  spear ;  that  many  in  the  Church  would  deride  him,  and  that 
reviews  and  editorials  would  exult  in  sarcastic  glee.  I  eagerly 
watched  him  at  this  critical  point.  And  without  one  instant's 
hesitation,  without  an  iota  of  swerving,  he  laid  his  hand  on  the 
Bible  and  said,  "Eve's  body  was  God  Almighty's  immediate 
creative  act."  When  I  found  him  true  there,  I  breathed  easy, 
for  I  knew  he  could  be  trusted  anywhere.  There  was  sublime 
courage  of  conviction  in  that  utterance.  Let  one  believe  what 
he  may  as  to  its  consistency,  as  to  its  scientific  probability,  the 
fact  stands  out  in  bold  relief,  "Here  is  a  man  who  will  face  a 
frowning  world  before  he  will  hesitate  to  make  God's  word,  in 
its  necessary  and  clear  meaning,  the  basis  and  limit  of  his 
creed."    So  the  thing  impressed  me  then,  and  so  it  does  now. 

I  contrast  this  absolute  refusal  to  compromise  God's  word 
with  certain  tendencies  developing  more  and  more  even  in 
Presbyterian  churches  to-day.  Put  one  of  your  modern  plati- 
tudinarians on  Inspiration  in  the  scientific  position  which  Dr, 
Woodrow  occupied  and  apply  to  him  the  severe  test  under  dis- 
cussion. Is  it  likely  that  he  would  ring  true?  We  can 
only  judge  by  what  we  daily  see  and  hear  :  when  facts  of  history 
are  treated  as  allegories;  when  whole  passages  are  ruled  out 
because  of  imaginary  inconsistency  with  other  passages ;  when 
the  theory  prevails  that  the  variable  human  consciousness  pro- 
nounces upon  Inspiration  the  final  dictum  of  acceptance  or 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


101 


rejection ;  when  Coleridge's  vague  generality,  "It  finds  me,"  is 
applied  as  a  touch-stone  here  and  there  to  tell  one  what  part  he 
must  receive  and  what  he  may  refuse. 

Dr.  Woodrow  did  teach  us  to  exercise  care  in  committing  the 
Bible  to  things  to  which  it  has  not  committed  itself.  I  feel  sure 
that  some  things  amongst  us  for  which  we  somewhat  loosely 
offer  Scripture  proof,  he  might  have  accepted  as  highly  bene- 
ficial if  voluntarily  received  and  observed  in  the  exercise  of 
liberty,  while  at  the  same  time,  he  might  have  refused  to  bind 
them  upon  the  conscience  as  a  commandment  of  God.  What- 
ever popular  opinion  or  human  tradition  might  be,  he  held 
himself  bound  only  by  God's  word,  and  he  would  not  yield  to 
sentiment  or  custom  imposing  as  duty  what  Revelation  had  not 
prescribed,  claiming  time  which  he  felt  he  ought  to  give  to  other 
duties  made  obligatory  by  especial  providence  upon  himself. 
In  this  way,  he  was  sometimes  misunderstood,  even  censured. 
But  what  God  taught,  he  taught;  and  just  that,  as  he  under- 
stood it,  he  practised. 

Throughout  the  whole  period  of  the  stormy  debates  on 
Evolution,  I  was  present  at  only  one  meeting  of  any  church 
court  before  which  Dr.  Woodrow  made  a  speech.  This  was 
the  Synod  of  Alabama,  convening  at  the  beautiful  little  city  of 
Huntsville.  The  run  from  Memphis  to  Huntsville  was  an  easy 
one  of  only  a  few  hours.  My  wife  and  a  young  lady  of  our 
congregation  and  I  ran  over  to  hear  the  discussion.  Dr.  Wood- 
row  was  surprised  to  see  us  and  he  especially  seemed  to  enjoy 
the  presence  and  society  of  the  two  ladies.  I  remember  that  he 
was  much  with  them,  showing  them  that  unaffected  and  chiv- 
alrous courtesy  which  he  never  failed  to  exhibit  to  woman. 
His  friends  and  sympathisers  in  the  Synod  of  Alabama  were 
grand  men.  Who  can  pronounce  the  name  of  Stillman  or  of 
Burgett  but  with  mingled  love  and  reverence?  I  recall  one 
conversation  participated  in  by  these  two,  Dr.  Woodrow,  and 
myself.  The  matter  of  which  we  spoke  was  the  coming  dis- 
cussion. What  impressed  me  was  the  utter  absence  of  any 
planning,  much  less  "scheming,"  for  the  debate.  The  noble 
men  whose  interest  was  so  deep  thought  not  of  using  any  sharp- 
ness, or  of  taking  any  advantage,  or  of  stooping  to  any  unworthy 
argument.    As  I  looked  upon  those  two  men  who,  in  a  sense, 


102 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


might  have  been  regarded  as  Dr.  Wood  row's  especial  associates 
in  that  Synod,  it  occurred  to  me,  "How  happy  is  this  man  in  his 
friends,  not  only  here  but  elsewhere!"  And  I  think  to-day  of 
the  saintly  Leighton  Wilson;  I  see  the  refined  face  of  J.  B. 
Adger ;  I  hear  the  cheery  voice  of  the  heroic  Wm.  E.  Boggs ; 
and  when  I  think  of  these  and  countless  others,  and  remember 
that  a  man  is  "known  by  the  company  he  keeps,"  I  decide  that 
Dr.  Woodrow's  eminent  personal  worth,  judged  by  this  test,  is 
on  an  immovable  basis. 

Well,  this  discussion  came  on.  I  remember  only  two  of  the 
speeches  :  the  one  by  Dr.  Otts,  the  other  by  Dr.  Woodrow.  Oh, 
yes,  I  recall  one  other,  which  was  very  fiery.  But  let  that  pass. 
I  think  Dr.  Woodrow  spoke  only  about  thirty-five  minutes.  He 
stood,  leaning  toward  us  a  little,  his  arms  hanging  down  at  his 
side,  with  no  excitement,  no  tragics,  no  sensation,  but  calm, 
clear,  now  and  then  slightly  hesitant;  his  manner  as  a  whole 
being  that  of  a  man  who  simply  intended  to  do  his  duty  and, 
after  that,  not  take  the  Synod's  responsibility  on  his  own  shoul- 
ders. There  were  some  keen  thrusts  and  there  was  the  old 
incisiveness,  but  there  were  no  personalities  and  there  was  no 
bitterness. 

At  one  time,  when  things  grew  pretty  warm  amongst  the 
brethren,  a  lady  said  to  her  neighbor,  "Well,  I  think  they'd 
better  sing  'Blest  be  the  tie  that  binds,'  now."  Just  at  that 
instant,  an  aged  brother,  with  quavering  voice,  arose  and  said, 
"Moderator,  I  move  we  suspend  the  discussion  while  we  sing 
'Blest  be  the  tie  that  binds,'  and  the  Moderator  lead  us  in 
prayer."  I  suppose  the  woman  is  yet  wondering  if  the  preacher 
was  a  mind-reader. 

The  years  rolled  on.  The  Church  controversy  came  to  an 
end  at  last.  Whether  "the  game  was  worth  the  candle"  will 
always  be  questioned.  It  is  superlatively  doubtful  whether  a 
like  agitation  over  the  same  small  issue  could  be  aroused  to-day 
Some  things  wear  themselves  out.  The  fine-spun  distinctions 
between  pardonable  "heterodoxy"  and  damnable  "heresy"  are 
very  tiresome  to  ordinary  mental  capacity,  and  the  Church  will 
be  glad  to  drop  them  for  bigger  things.  Before  taking  final 
leave  of  this  part  of  my  writing,  I  desire,  in  justice  to  Dr. 
Woodrow,  to  add  one  thing:  he  was  a  "leader"  of  those  who, 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


103 


some  to  a  greater,  some  to  a  less  extent,  espoused  his  side  of  the 
controversy,  only  in  a  very  limited  sense.  And  the  reason  was, 
that  he  did  not  care  to  be.  He  had  no  clan  of  his  own  gather- 
ing. Every  man  who  stood  by  him  did  so  without  one  word 
or  gesture  of  solicitation,  as  I  fully  believe.  So  far  as  I  know, 
or  ever  heard,  he  organised  no  forces.  More  than  once,  in  the 
discussion  of  matters  involved  in  the  general  ecclesiastical 
movements,  I  found  myself  honestly  holding  views  differing 
from  his ;  and  about  at  least  one  of  those  things — the  right  of  a 
Seminary  Board  to  try  a  Presbyterian  minister  for  heresy,  even 
if  he  were  a  Professor — we  had  correspondence,  and  never  did 
come  to  a  common  conclusion.  But  Dr.  Woodrow  sought  to 
bind  no  man.  So  far  as  I  know,  he  never  attempted  to  impose 
his  own  opinions  upon  another.  The  simple  fact  is  that,  when 
dealing  with  him,  I  always  felt  that  I  must  be  true  to  my  own 
convictions  if  I  would  retain  his  respect.  There  was  a  sense  in 
which  I  stood  in  awe  of  him.  There  was  a  force  of  character 
in  him  which  made  him  despise  anything  less  than  real  manli- 
ness. I  remember  his  writing  at  one  time  something  to  the 
effect  that  he  must  retain  his  own  respect,  no  matter  whose 
good  opinion  he  might  lose.  That  thing  which  he  claimed  as  his 
high  prerogative,  I  never  found  him  unwilling  to  accord  to 
others.  He  had  no  blind  followers  and  did  not  desire  any. 
He  was  no  creator  of  a  party.  The  fact  is,  he  was  such  a  hard 
worker  that  he  seemed  to  his  friends  rather  indifferent  to  even 
permissible  community  of  management. 

After  the  meeting  of  the  Synod  of  Alabama  in  Huntsville,  I 
did  not  see  Dr.  Woodrow  again  until  the  celebration  cf  the 
250th  anniversary  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  at  Charlotte, 
N.  C.  He  entered  the  old  First  church  in  his  quiet,  unassuming 
way,  and  took  his  seat  in  a  chair  on  the  right  sid  as  one  enters. 
I  think  Dr.  Hoge  was  to  speak  that  morning.  I  saw  Dr.  Wood- 
row  before  he  saw  me,  and,  from  my  position,  I  could  study  his 
face.  I  could  see  in  it  no  effect  of  those  years  of  conflict.  His 
face  was  much  fuller  and  his  general  health  seemed  far  better. 
Of  course  we  had  our  subsequent  meeting  and  greeting.  If  I 
remember  aright,  he  was  even  then  taking  the  first  steps  in 
another  journey  abroad.  When  the  time  came  for  him  to  go  to 
the  train,  I  walked  with  him  to  the  station.    There  we  sat  down 


104 


DR.  JAME)S  WOODROW. 


and  had  a  long  talk.  And  there,  I  think,  more  than  at  any 
other  time,  Dr.  Woodrow  showed  me  his  heart. 

Of  course  we  spoke  of  the  days  and  the  struggles  gone  by. 
He  uttered  no  word  of  complaining  or  repining,  much  less  of 
personal  bitterness.  He  did  seem  to  be  solicitous  lest  that 
which  had  come  to  him  might  touch  his  friends.  And  out  of 
this  generous  regard  for  others,  he  said  he  had  thrown  up 
around  himself  a  voluntary  isolation  which  was  in  striking  and 
pathetic  contrast  with  the  years  gone  by,  when  to  his  home,  to 
his  happy  family,  he  could  call  his  friends  without  constraint. 
He  especially  mentioned  the  happy  times  with  "Wilson"  (Dr.  J. 
Leighton)  and  others.  Thus  we  talked.  Through  the  wait- 
ing-room, in  hurry  and  bustle,  men  and  women  and  children, 
"each  bearing  his  burden  of  sorrow,"  came  and  went.  The 
roaring  train  rushed  in.  The  room  poured  out  its  crowd  of 
restless  travellers.  The  hasty  "good-by"  was  said.  My  friend 
moved  on  toward  the  ocean.  I  bent  my  head  in  some  pensive 
thought  and  went  back  to  the  church.  I  was  to  meet  Dr. 
Woodrow  but  once  more  in  this  world.  Our  association  was  to 
end  where  it  began,  in  dear  old  Columbia.  I  shall  tell  of  that, 
and  "sum  up"  my  estimate  of  this  unique  man ;  and  my  humble 
work  will  be  done. 

Twenty-eight  years  had  passed  since,  with  my  diploma  and 
my  whole  stock  of  two  sermons,  I  had  gone  forth  from  the  dear 
old  Seminary.  In  all  that  time,  although  I  had  repeatedly 
travelled  through  Columbia,  I  had  not  again  entered  any  Semi- 
nary building.  This  visit  was  at  Commencement  time :  I  came 
to  deliver  an  address  before  the  Alumni  Association. 

It  was  natural  that  I  should  contrast  the  Columbia  of  1868 
with  the  Columbia  of  1899.  Then,  the  "waste  places"  were 
everywhere  in  view.  The  vacancies  between  buildings  were 
many  and  extensive,  and  usually  covered  with  rubbish  of  brick 
and  mortar.  Now,  the  streets  on  either  side  exhibited  hand- 
some homes.  But  the  Seminary  buildings  looked  just  as  of 
old:  and,  especially,  the  tall  pines,  whose  murmur  used  to 
sound  so  mournful  to  the  homesick  boy,  as  he  listened  to  them 
at  night,  were  unchanged.  The  Preston  mansion  and  yard, 
across  the  street  from  the  Seminary,  was  now  a  College  for 
young  ladies,  and  I  attended  a  reception  at  which  bright,  happy 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


105 


faces  of  girls,  and  their  merry  voices,  made  even  the  old  feel 
young  again.  Separating  myself  from  all  others,  I  went  alone 
to  my  old  room.  Entering  the  western  building  from  the  south 
side,  I  paused  a  moment  at  the  door.  How  many  happy 
moments  I  had  known  right  on  that  spot!  Just  after  dinner, 
or  supper,  when  coming  out  from  the  little,  long  frame  "mess- 
hall,"  DuBose  and  Goetchius  and  Read  and  Smart  and  Neel 
and  McBryde  and  Thompson  and  Baker  and  Dickey  and 
Ingram  would  linger  in  the  yard,  about  the  door ;  and  we  would 
pass  the  happy  jest,  or  Goetchius  and  Baker  would  start  the 
song — and  then,  with  brotherly  good  cheer  in  our  hearts,  we 
would  break  up,  and  almost  leap  up  the  several  stairways,  to 
our  books ;  and  soon  all  would  be  still !  Entering,  I  let  my 
eye  run  up  the  steps.  How  worn  the  edges  were!  Up  and 
down,  up  and  down,  the  students  had  been  passing,  year  after 
year.  Ascending  two  flights,  and  turning  to  the  right,  I  stood 
at  the  door  of  my  old  room.  It  was  locked.  Apparently,  no 
one  was  within.  There  Read  and  I  for  three  years  had  lived 
as  brothers,  without  one  ripple  on  the  lake  of  our  peace. 
Immediately  across  was  the  brilliant  Grafton.  Next  to  him 
was  the  sterling  John  S.  Moore.  Next  to  us,  Read  and  me, 
was  R.  D.  Smart,  my  chum  and  confidant,  a  Methodist  brother 
with  whom  I  used  to  read  alternately  "Watson's  Institutes" 
and  "Calvin's  Institutes."  As  I  stood  there,  not  a  sound  broke 
the  stillness  in  the  hall.  And  my  soul  was  subdued  and  still 
as,  perhaps  for  the  last  time,  I  descended  the  steps  and  slowly 
walked  away. 

I  went  to  the  Columbia  church,  in  which  I  was  to  speak  that 
night.  For  three  years,  morning  and  night,  it  had  been  my 
place  of  worship.  How  almost  adoringly  the  village  boy  had 
looked  up  to  the  young  and  gifted  Wm.  E.  Boggs  as  he  stood  in 
that  marble  pulpit !  It  seemed  to  me  that  I  would  just  die  if  I 
had  to  stand  in  that  elegant  old  church  and  that  grand  pulpit 
and  try  to  preach!  I  have  since  heard  Palmer,  Girardeau, 
Hoge,  John  Hall,  and  a  host  of  others ;  but  in  those  three  years 
I  got  as  much  from  the  interesting  and  eloquent  expository 
sermons  of  Wm.  E.  Boggs  as  from  any  Professor  in  the  Semi- 
nary.   He  taught  me  "how  to  do  it"  by — doing  it! 


106 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


I  walked  through  the  church  cemetery  and  stood  at  the  grave 
of  Dr.  Howe.  I  pause  in  this  writing,  to  think  what  adjective 
may  be  put  before  his  name.  And,  to  all  who  knew  him,  in  his 
class-room  and  in  his  home,  it  will  seem  better  just  to  write, 
"Dr.  Howe."  To  know  him  was  to  love  him,  and  to  name  him 
is  sufficient  praise.  Memory  glorifies  him.  And  so  infinitely 
doth  Christ. 

To  see  Dr.  Woodrow,  I  went  to  his  home.  As  I  entered,  his 
face  lit  up  and  his  voice  was  cordial.  I  told  him  for  what 
purpose  I  had  come,  and  then  went  over  the  outline  of  the 
Address  which  I  was  to  try  to  deliver.  And  what  do  you  sup- 
pose was  his  first  question?  "What  made  you  select  such  a 
dry  subject?"  And  that  brought  on  a  little  argument,  as  to 
what  the  times  demanded,  etc.  After  this,  we  spoke  of  other 
things;  but  there  was  no  discussion  of  old  controversies  and 
very  little  allusion  to  the  Seminary  or  its  affairs.  I  left,  intend- 
ing to  see  him  again.  But  when  I  repeated  the  call,  he  was  not 
at  home.  He  was  not  present  in  the  church  the  night  of  the 
address.  We  had  met  for  the  last  time  on  earth.  Adger, 
Howe,  Plumer,  Woodrow,  Wilson,  all  now  in  heaven.  And 
not  the  least  among  these  was  Dr.  Woodrow. 

There  are  some  men  who  seem  to  be  born  to  be,  in  a 
measure,  unique,  and  even  solitary,  in  their  personality.  Partly 
from  their  own  constitution,  partly  from  circumstances  shaping 
and  controlling  their  lives,  they  make  a  record  which  is  pre- 
eminently different  from  that  of  other  men. 

Such  a  man  was  John  Calvin.  The  recent  study  given  to  him 
and  his  work  shows  him  as  one  original  almost  unto  loneliness : 
in  his  youthful  experiences,  in  his  swinging  back  and  forth 
between  things  civil  and  things  ecclesiastical;  in  his  independ- 
ence, his  mental  acumen,  his  refusal  to  compromise,  his  fear- 
lessness, his  dominancy,  his  complete  burial  of  himself  under 
his  work.  There  ever  was,  there  ever  will  be,  but  one  John 
Calvin. 

In  later  times,  such  a  man  was  Jefferson  Davis.  I  sat  in  a 
pulpit  in  Memphis  when  this  great  man  was  in  the  second  pew 
immediately  in  front  of  me;  and  between  us,  in  his  coffin,  lay 
the  body  of  General  N.  B.  Forrest.  The  face  of  Mr.  Davis  at 
that  hour  made  upon  me  an  impression  which  I  shall  never  lose. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


107 


While  it  showed  sadness  unutterable,  it  showed  most  of  all  a 
certain  conscious  solitude;  and  underneath  it,  an  inflexible 
determination  not  to  alter,  by  surrender  of  one  iota  of  convic- 
tion, the  faith  which  threw  around  him  his  environment  of 
isolation.  The  Civil  War  had  but  one  Jefferson  Davis.  His 
whole  career  studied  in  the  white  light  of  coming  years,  through 
all  his  course  of  service  both  military  and  civil,  including  also 
his  years  at  Beauvoir,  will  send  through  history  a  figure  moving 
alone  in  a  kind  of  mysterious  necessity  of  walking  his  own  way 
apart. 

With  these  two  men,  the  one  in  ecclesiastical  life,  the  other  in 
civil,  I  have  always  associated  Dr.  Woodrow.  All  three  of 
them  were  men  of  apparently  delicate  physical  frames,  all  of 
them  had  days  and  days  of  weakness  and  ill  health,  all  of  them 
were  of  high-strung  nerves.  All  three  of  them  were  prodigi- 
ous workers,  knowing  little  of  rest  save  in  the  sense  so  often 
on  Dr.  Woodrow's  lips,  "Rest  is  a  change  of  labor."  All  three 
of  them  were  most  loving  men  in  their  families ;  Dr.  Woodrow 
in  Columbia  wrought  with  wife  and  children  around  him  all 
the  time;  Mr.  Davis's  home,  as  described  to  me  by  one  who 
lived  in  his  family  for  years,  was  one  in  which  the  youngest 
child  was  taught  to  ask  the  blessing  at  the  table;  and  Calvin's 
home  by  Lake  Leman  presented  a  sweet  scene  as  Idelette 
DeBurre  lay  an  invalid  and  her  hard-worked  husband  bent  over 
her  to  help  her  walk  through  the  shaded  valley.  It  may  be 
frankly  admitted  that  all  three  of  these  great  men  had  strong 
predilections  and  also  strong  antipathies.  They  were  all  as 
honest  as  Paul  and  as  just  as  Aristides.  They  all  saw  truth  as 
by  a  kind  of  inborn  sense,  and  their  vision  of  it  was  matched 
by  their  love  for  it.  Any  one  of  them  would  have  poured  out 
his  blood  like  water  in  defence  of  what  he  believed  to  be  right. 

Such  men  seem  born  for  conflict.  It  is  not  that  they  love  it. 
They  get  into  it  because  they  cannot  avoid  it — because  they  are 
just  what  they  are.  Calvin  was  pushed  into  the  battle  of  the 
Reformation,  Davis  into  the  wars  of  his  country;  and  the 
Church  herself  put  Dr.  Woodrow  into  the  very  forefront  of  the 
battle  old  as  history — between  the  interpretations  of  Natural 
Science  and  those  of  Scriptural  Revelation. 


108 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Sitting  in  to-day's  calmness  and  looking  backward,  it  does 
seem  that  when  the  Church  created  the  Perkins  Professorship, 
she  ordained  the  most  delicately  uncertain  piece  of  mechanism 
that  she  could  have  devised.  It  may  be  added  that  when  she 
called  a  man  to  sit  in  that  chair,  there  existed  the  same  delicate 
uncertainty  as  to  what  it  might  prove  to  be  to  him ;  with  the 
probabilities  largely  in  favor  of  its  turning  out  to  be  for  him  a 
most  successful  instrument  of  professorial  and  ministerial  elec- 
trocution. There  are  a  number  of  facts  showing  how  hazard- 
ous was  the  experiment. 

For  example :  the  man  to  occupy  the  chair  ex  necessitate  rei 
must  be  far  and  away  ahead  of  the  mass  of  the  Church  as  a 
Scientist.  Then,  too,  he  must  say  just  what  he  believes  The 
Church  at  one  period  will  refuse  a  dictum  of  science  which  she 
will  accept  with  perfect  composure  later  on ;  and  the  Professor 
at  this  time  of  interesting  transition,  if  prudent,  may  be  held  up 
as  artful — and  if  imprudent,  may  be  condemned  as  heretical. 
And  with  a  whole  Church  behind  him,  he  is  surely  in  no  envia- 
ble position.  That  Dr.  Woodrow  held  the  place  for  twenty- 
three  years  (1861-1884)  with  credit  to  himself,  with  peace  to 
the  Church,  and  with  safety  to  the  faith  of  every  student 
impressed  by  him,  so  long  as  he  was  left  to  his  discretion,  is  in 
itself  the  highest  possible  tribute ;  especially  in  view  of  the  fact 
that,  during  this  whole  period,  science  honored  him  as  one  of 
her  favored  sons.  To  have  been  at  the  helm  in  the  storm-centre 
of  centuries  required  a  cool  head,  a  courageous  heart,  a  firm 
and  strong  hand,  and  an  abiding  faith  in  One  who  rules,  as  well 
as  a  devout  recognition  of  his  voice  when  he  says,  "It  is  L" 
The  proof  that  Dr.  Woodrow  had  these  things  is  found  (1)  in 
the  almost  unparalleled  difficulty  and  danger  of  his  work,  (2) 
in  his  long  continuance  in  it,  (3)  in  the  reverent  character  of 
all  his  Bible  students :  all  three  being  taken  into  consideration 
in  common. 

The  mere  negative  statement  that  the  faith  of  no  student  of 
Dr.  Woodrow  was  injured  by  his  instruction  must  not  be  left 
to  stand  alone,  as  if  it  conveyed  the  whole  truth.  The  general 
instructions  as  to  the  true  relation  between  Science  and  Revela- 
tion were  undoubtedly  of  great  value.  I  had  no  Professor  who 
more  thoroughly  impressed  upon  me  the  need  of  diligence  in 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


109 


trying  to  get  the  actual  meaning  of  texts  and  of  giving  that  very 
meaning  to  the  people.  He  taught  me  the  sin  of  "handling  the 
word  of  God  deceitfully,''  the  wickedness  of  adding  to  it  or 
taking  from  it.  He  also  put  me  upon  my  guard  as  to  the 
sacredness  of  truth  wherever  found,  and  as  to  the  downright 
impossibility  that  truth  should  be  at  variance  with  itself.  I 
have  no  doubt  that  his  warnings  kept  many  of  us,  when  we 
became  preachers,  from  vapid  declamations  about  things  con- 
cerning which  we  were,  most  of  us,  very  densely  ignorant. 
Just  two  weeks  ago  in  the  city  of  Baltimore  a  most  intelligent 
Christian  quoted  to  me  some  foolish  thing  which  was  said  in  the 
General  Assembly  when  meeting  there,  and  referred  to  the  way 
in  which  it  had  been  caught  up  and  ridiculed  by  students  in  that 
city.  Dr.  Woodrow  certainly  taught  us  not  to  talk  unless  we 
knew  what  we  were  talking  about.  There  are  very  few  lessons 
more  valuable,  especially  to  some  like  this  writer  whose  youth- 
ful pugnacity  needs  very  serious  curbing.  If  we  did  so  ill  even 
with  Dr.  Woodrow's  warnings,  what  might  we  not  have  done 
without  them?  The  young  theologian  issuing  from  the  Semi- 
nary armed  with  detonating  power  pent  up  for  three  years  must 
make  a  noise  to  scare  something  or  somebody,  and  how  natural 
for  him  to  fire  away  at  "Infidel  Science."  Right  there  he  needs 
a  friendly  voice  to  tell  him  to  be  sure  that  "Science"  is  "Infidel" 
before  he  takes  his  David's  sword  and  cuts  off  the  Giant's 
head.  Now  and  then  scientific  truth  shows  itself  as  good  and 
as  irresistible  as  any  other.  I  remember  very  well  when  I  first 
heard  any  one  question  the  universality  of  the  Deluge.  I  felt 
like  telling  him  that  the  Bible  must  stand  or  fall  with  the  belief 
that  this  ball  on  which  we  live  was  submerged  and  hidden  under 
water.  Before  the  debate  in  the  Seminary  was  over,  and  such 
ironside  Calvinists  as  John  S.  Moore  had  concluded  their  "few 
feeble  remarks,"  I  began  to  suspect  that  it  would  be  as  well  to 
look  into  the  matter  right  carefully  before  challenging  the 
whole  earth  and  staking  the  Bible  on  the  result  of  the  discus- 
sion. The  whole  influence  of  Dr.  Woodrow  tended  to  this  one 
point,  namely:  "Go  ahead,"  but  first  "be  sure  you  are  right." 
We  have  to  get  into  a  pretty  high  and  fine  air,  leaving  behind 
us  much  foolish  egotism  and  prejudice,  in  order  to  believe  that 


110 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


all  truth  is  one.  Dr.  Woodrow  told  us  to  "Buy  the  Truth  and 
sell  it  not." 

I  may  mention  one  other  way  in  which  Dr.  Woodrow  was  of 
great  value  to  theological  students.  If  Dr.  Howe  helped  us  by 
his  gentle,  modest  piety  and  his  great  patience  in  imparting  to 
us  the  treasures  of  his  laborious  study ;  if  Dr.  Plumer  warmed 
our  hearts  and  kept  us  from  falling  into  formalism  by  his 
devoutness  in  the  class-room  even  unto  tears;  if  Dr.  Adger, 
every  inch  an  amiable  and  polished  Christian  gentleman,  won  us 
by  his  courtesy  and  held  us  by  the  great  worth  of  his  instruc- 
tion ;  if  Dr.  Wilson,  so  brilliant  and  original  in  his  handling  of 
texts,  so  gifted  in  rhetorical  finish,  taught  us  to  analyse 
passages  and  to  throw  our  thoughts  into  popular  form ;  it  was 
Dr.  Woodrow  who,  with  himself  as  the  conspicuous  but  unin- 
tentional personal  illustration,  influenced  us  to  shun  pretence 
and  hypocrisy  in  our  holy  calling  and  in  our  daily  lives. 
Thomas  Carlyle  himself  never  more  abhorred  and  scorned 
sham.  He  may  have  been  thought  to  carry  this  detestation  of 
any  small  meanness  to  the  very  verge  of  uncharitableness,  but 
he  believed  with  all  his  heart,  as  he  often  said,  "Charity  is  no 
fool,"  and  "rejoices  in  the  truth."  He  moved  on  straight  lines, 
and  he  wanted  everybody  else  to  live  the  direct  life.  The  influ- 
ence of  such  a  man  in  a  Theological  Seminary,  ever  by  his  very 
personality  discouraging  the  tendency  to  let  piety  degenerate 
into  cant,  and  preaching  dwindle  into  mere  popular  perform- 
ance, has  a  value  which  it  is  not  easy  to  exaggerate.  Add  to 
this,  an  example  of  industry  and  intensity  and  devotedness  in 
toil  almost  unto  death,  and  you  have  a  living  illustration  of 
truthful  honor  laying  itself  upon  the  altar  of  service  clearly 
revealed  in  its  own  illuminating  fire. 

Thus  must  end  this  loving  little  tribute  to  my  honored  friend. 
We  were  too  far  apart  in  our  respective  years  for  me  to  claim 
any  of  that  familiarity  of  association  which  he  doubtless 
accorded  to  those  whose  age  was  nearer  his  own.  I  have  given 
in  this  reminiscent  sketch  about  all  the  meetings  and  conversa- 
tions we  ever  had.  They  were  not  very  numerous.  But  his 
personality  has  left  a  strong  impression  upon  mine.  I  believe 
him  superior  to  any  man  I  have  ever  known  as  an  analyst  of 
truth,  as  a  detective  of  error  when  presenting  itself  under 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


Ill 


truth's  garb,  as  a  revealer  of  the  exact,  naked  issue  in  any 
discussion,  and  as  a  debater  successful  almost  to  the  despair 
and  often  to  the  exasperation  of  his  opponents.  All  things 
considered — the  novelty  of  the  position  to  which  the  Church 
called  him,  the  necessity  laid  upon  him  to  blaze  a  path  in  a 
wilderness  where  he  could  see  no  footprints  of  those  who  had 
gone  before,  the  demand  upon  him  from  his  own  conscience  and 
from  the  Church,  as  he  stood  a  solitary  priest  and  prophet  at  the 
two-sided  altar  of  Nature  and  Revelation,  to  read  the  inscrip- 
tions and  then  "cry  aloud  and  spare  not,"  the  sacrifices  he 
endured,  the  separations  and  sorrows  he  bore — all  these  things 
remembered,  I  would  be  glad  to-night  if  he  had  stood  at  that 
double  shrine  until  he  died.  But  in  humble  submission  I  can 
add,  "The  will  of  the  Lord  is  accomplished;  so  mote  it  be." 
The  blinding  providence  which  took  from  him  his  son,  whose 
manhood  had  not  even  attained  to  the  zenith,  graciously  gave  a 
measure  of  comforting  compensation  in  his  grandson ;  all  bear- 
ing here  below  the  name  which  we  trust  shall  be  found  thrice 
written  on  the  scroll  of  the  redeemed,  James  Woodrow. 


112 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Some  Impressions. 


BY  THE  REV.  DR.  C.  R.  HEMPHIIX. 

In  setting  down  briefly  some  impressions  of  Dr.  Woodrow, 
it  must  be  understood  that  I  make  no  effort  to  give  a  full 
estimate  of  his  character  and  work ;  much  less  do  I  attempt  any- 
adequate  appreciation  of  him  as  Christian,  scholar,  minister, 
and  teacher.  I  count  it  among  the  blessings  of  a  kind  Provi- 
dence that  for  a  long  period  of  years  it  was  permitted  me  to  be 
under  the  potent  influence  of  Dr.  Woodrow.  For  ten  years  I 
was  in  close  relations  with  him,  first  as  a  student  in  the 
Columbia  Seminary,  and  then  as  an  associate  in  the  instruction 
of  this  venerable  and  beloved  institution.  He  was  good  enough 
to  admit  me  to  an  intimacy  that  gave  every  opportunity  to  know 
the  real  characteristics  of  the  man. 

What,  then,  are  a  few  of  the  impressions  that  abide  with  me 
after  these  years?  Let  me  record  first  my  first  impression  of 
Dr.  Woodrow :  this  was  his  capacity  for  work.  My  early 
recollection  of  Dr.  Woodrow  brings  him  before  me  in  his  class- 
room. He  was  pale  and  delicate,  worn  apparently  with  toil, 
and  scarcely  able  to  speak  in  tones  audible  to  his  class.  His 
utterance  was  slow,  sometimes  hesitating,  and  with  evident  pain 
to  himself ;  (in  later  years  I  have  heard  him  on  occasion  rise 
to  heights  of  moving  eloquence).  But  even  under  these  adverse 
conditions  the  vigorous  intellect,  the  sure-footed  reason,  the 
powerful  will,  made  their  indelible  mark.  It  was  easy  to 
understand  the  reason  for  Dr.  Woodrow's  condition  of  health : 
the  energies  of  his  constitution,  never  robust,  were  exhausted 
by  his  labors.  He  was  at  this  time  holding  two  Professorships, 
one  in  the  Seminary,  and  one  in  the  South  Carolina  University ; 
he  was  editor  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian,  a  weekly  religious 
paper,  and  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Review,  and  in  con- 
nexion with  these  publications  was  manager  of  a  Printing 
House;  in  addition  he  was  Treasurer  of  one  or  more  of  the 
Assembly's  Executive  Committees.  Amid  these  multiplied 
labors  and  cares  Dr.  Woodrow  displayed  a  marvellous  capacity 
for  work.  He  did  everything  with  exactness,  promptness,  and 
completeness ;  he  never  slighted  any  part  of  his  work ;  he 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


113 


showed  no  sign  of  worry  or  distraction ;  he  turned  readily  from 
one  sort  of  work  to  another ;  he  denied  himself  all  social  diver- 
sions, and  used  every  moment  of  time.  It  remains  still  a 
wonder  to  me  how  he  retained  the  freshness  of  his  interest  in 
such  a  variety  of  things,  and  accomplished  such  manifold  tasks. 
When  from  very  exhaustion  he  was  compelled  to  go  abroad 
for  rest  and  recuperation,  he  renewed  his  energies  among  the 
Alps  in  the  study  of  Geology.  This  capacity  for  work,  this 
ceaseless  effort  to  learn  and  to  achieve,  was  characteristic  of  Dr. 
Woodrow  to  the  last. 

It  is  remarkable  that  in  the  midst  of  such  varied  interests  and 
demands  on  his  time  Dr.  Woodrow  lost  none  of  the  aptitudes 
of  the  scholar  and  the  scientific  student.  He  was  at  home 
with  the  classics,  and  it  was  no  uncommon  thing  to  find  him  in 
his  study  with  some  Greek  or  Latin  author  in  his  hand.  He 
had  a  familiar  knowledge  of  French  and  German  and  a  good 
acquaintance  with  the  literatures  of  these  languages.  He  was 
a  man  of  the  true  scientific  temper,  and  constantly  pursued  his 
studies  in  Science  in  the  field  and  in  the  laboratory  as  well  as  in 
published  writings.  Yet  with  all  this  versatility,  this  combina- 
tion of  the  scholar  and  the  man  of  affairs,  Dr.  Woodrow's 
knowledge  was  not  of  the  superficial  sort.  On  the  contrary  he 
was  unusually  thorough  and  accurate,  and  among  the  objects  of 
his  contempt — and  he  had  some  gift  in  this  respect — was  the 
pretence  to  a  knowledge  and  scholarship  not  really  possessed. 

Akin  to  this  scholarly  thoroughness  was  Dr.  Woodrow' s  Love 
of  the  Truth.  He  had  a  passion  for  the  Truth.  He  was  her 
devoted  lover,  cautious  not  to  mistake  semblance  for  reality,  but 
fearless  to  follow  wherever  Truth  should  lead.  God  was  to 
him  the  God  of  Truth,  and  this  faith  made  him  the  open-eyed 
student,  the  patient  investigator,  the  solicitous  collector  of  facts, 
the  careful  reasoner.  And  if  he  loved  Truth  in  the  realm 
of  knowledge  he  loved  it  no  less  in  the  realm  of  the  practical ; 
to  know  the  truth  and  to  do  the  truth  were  wedded  together  for 
him.  Here  he  was  uncompromising:  he  hated  falsehood  with 
a  perfect  hatred,  he  blasted  it  with  fiery  denunciation.  Espe- 
cially did  he  abhor  a  half-truth  parading  itself  as  the  whole 
truth,  believing  "that  a  lie  which  is  half  a  truth  is  ever  the 
blackest  of  lies."    His  judgments  of  men  in  this  regard  were 


8— w 


114 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


sometimes  accounted  severe — perhaps  he  did  not  make  sufficient 
allowance  for  the  infirmities  of  man — but  it  may  at  least  be 
claimed  that  he  only  applied  to  others  the  high  standards  to 
which  he  rigidly  held  himself.  Many  bitter  things  were  uttered 
against  him  in  the  heat  of  the  controversy  that  sprang  up  after 
the  delivery  of  his  notable  Address  on  Evolution,  but  the  iron 
entered  deepest  into  his  soul  under  the  charge  of  his  having 
been  secretly  holding  and  teaching  views  which  he  was  unwill- 
ing for  the  Church  to  know.  Dr.  Woodrow  read  me  his 
Address  a  short  while  before  its  delivery,  and  in  connexion  with 
it  told  me  that  while  he  had  for  several  years  been  teaching  his 
classes  that  the  hypothesis  of  the  evolution  of  plants  and  ani- 
mals, and  even  of  the  body  of  man,  whether  true  or  not,  was 
not  inconsistent  with  the  Bible  statements  in  the  narrative  of 
Creation,  yet  he  had  never  been  convinced  of  the  probable  truth 
of  this  hypothesis ;  it  was  in  the  prosecution  of  his  studies  in  the 
preparation  of  the  Address  that  he  had  been  led  to  abandon  the 
views  he  had  always  hitherto  held  and  taught,  views  held  by  his 
great  teacher  Agassiz,  and  had  come  to  believe  that  the  balance 
of  probabilities  was  in  favor  of  the  hypothesis  of  Evolution 
under  the  limitations  set  forth  in  his  Address.  I  may  add  that 
after  he  had  read  me  the  Address  Dr.  Woodrow  asked  my 
opinion.  I  said  to  him :  "Dr.  Woodrow,  I  am  not  competent  to 
pass  judgment  on  the  truth  or  falsity  of  Evolution;  but  the 
publication  of  your  Address  will,  I  fear,  bring  on  a  contro- 
versy." He  quietly  replied :  "Yes,  I  suppose  it  will ;  but  I  do 
not  feel  responsible  for  that.  The  Board  of  Directors  has 
requested  me  to  deliver  an  Address  on  this  subject,  and  I  must, 
of  course,  give  honestly  what  I  believe."  This  remark  was 
characteristic  of  the  man,  holding  as  he  did, 

"Because  right  is  right,  to  follow  right 
Were  wisdom  in  the  scorn  of  consequence." 

I  pass  to  the  last  impression  I  have  time  and  space  to  record. 
This  was  Dr.  Woodrow's  Faith  in  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Many 
rise  up  to-day  and  call  him  blessed  for  the  confirmation  of  their 
conviction  that  the  Bible  is  the  very  word  of  God,  infallible  in 
everything  it  teaches  in  any  and  every  sphere.  This  was  his 
own  reverent  and  unquestioning  and  unshakeable  faith.  It  was 
his  vocation  in  a  time  of  doubt  and  vague  alarm  to  guide  young 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


115 


men  through  the  tangled  paths  where  the  statements  of  Holy 
Scripture  and  the  findings  of  Physical  Science  seem  to  inter- 
lace. A  difficult  and  perilous  task  it  was ;  but  every  intelligent 
and  thoughtful  student  of  Dr.  Woodrow  throughout  his  many 
years  of  teaching  in  Columbia  Seminary  will  bear  witness  to  his 
infinite  patience,  his  insight,  his  discrimination,  his  loyalty  to 
truth,  his  fidelity  to  the  word  of  God.  I  make  bold  to  say  that 
no  man  ever  became  a  skeptic  or  a  rationalist  under  Dr.  Wood- 
row's  teaching  or  example ;  and  many  there  are  who  will  never 
cease  to  thank  him  for  the  way  in  which  he  steadied  and 
deepened  their  faith  in  God's  truth,  whether  revealed  more 
dimly  in  his  works  or  more  brightly  in  his  word.  And  it  is 
worth  remarking  that  he  constantly  maintained  that  our  faith 
in  the  Scriptures  is  not  to  be  adjourned  to  the  confirmation  of 
their  teachings  whether  from  Natural  Science,  History,  or 
Archaeology.  No  more  serious  misconstruction  could  be  put 
on  Dr.  Woodrow's  attitude  toward  the  Bible  than  to  suppose 
him  to  have  suspended  faith  in  the  Bible  on  the  teachings  of 
Science.  With  him  the  ascertained  teaching  of  the  Scriptures 
was  final  and  authoritative. 

But  here  I  must  arrest  my  pen.  It  is  a  pleasure  to  write  even 
these  poor  words  in  recognition  of  the  worth  and  service  of  one 
to  whom  my  obligations  are  neither  few  nor  small.  If  his 
biography  is  ever  written,  it  will  reveal  a  Man,  a  Man  of  God, 
a  devoted  servant  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  a  heroic  and  self- 
denying  toiler  for  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church,  and  one 
ever  loyal  to  her  principles.  From  the  strife  of  tongues  and 
from  the  labors  of  earth  he  is  at  rest. 


116 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


A  Reminiscence. 


BY  THE  REV.  DR.  S.  L,.  MORRIS. 

It  was  my  good  fortune  to  receive  my  theological  education 
and  training  at  Columbia  Seminary  during  the  time  when  that 
institution  was  in  the  zenith  of  its  prosperity.  Never  before 
nor  since  that  time  has  it  ever  had  as  many  as  sixty  students  in 
attendance.  Its  faculty  consisted  of  Drs.  Howe,  Plumer, 
Adger,  Wilson,  and  Woodrow,  every  one  of  whom  has  since 
gone  to  his  reward.  It  will  be  no  disparagement  of  his  illustri- 
ous colleagues,  if  I  am  allowed  to  say  that  Dr.  James 
Woodrow's  teachings  left  their  impress  upon  my  life  and 
thought  more  deeply  than  any  of  this  learned  and  beloved 
faculty. 

His  teaching  was  positive,  pointed,  impressive,  and  thoroughly 
orthodox.  One  could  not  sit  in  his  class-room  without  being 
impressed  day  after  day  with  his  profound  belief  in  the  Bible 
as  the  very  word  of  God,  infallible  and  inspired  in  its  every 
utterance.  There  was  never  any  doubt — not  the  slightest  sug- 
gestion that  the  human  element  in  its  composition  ever  modified 
its  divine  authority.  He  taught  his  students  not  only  to  respect 
its  authority  in  matters  of  faith  and  practice,  but  to  bow  to  its 
teaching  as  supreme  and  the  end  of  all  controversy. 

In  his  own  department  of  Natural  Science  in  Connexion  with 
Revelation,  his  chief  contention  was  for  the  law  of  non-contra- 
diction between  Science  and  Revelation.  He  held  firmly  that 
God's  works,  when  interpreted  by  true  science,  and  God's  word 
when  correctly  understood,  could  never  contradict  each  other, 
since  all  truth  must  be  consistent  with  itself.  He  advised  his 
students  not  to  attempt  to  harmonise  Science  and  Revelation, 
because  they  occupied  different  spheres  and  dealt  with  different 
phases  of  truth.  His  contention  was  that  the  Bible  was  written, 
not  to  teach  science,  was  not  written  in  scientific  language,  and 
dealt  not  with  scientific  subjects.  At  the  same  time,  he 
insisted  as  strenuously  that  the  Bible  contained  nothing  contra- 
dictory to  any  scientific  truth.  His  whole  effort  was  not  to 
reconcile  Science  and  Revelation,  but  to  demonstrate  beyond  the 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


117 


shadow  of  a  doubt  their  non-contradiction.  It  required  patient 
and  persistent  teaching  to  make  many  apprehend  this  distinc- 
tion, and  appreciate  his  position.  It  was  misrepresented,  and 
misunderstood,  but  it  is  more  and  more  becoming  the  accepted 
platform  of  both  scientists  and  theologians.  He  impressed  his 
students  with  the  thought  that  they  were  not  to  preach  science, 
but  to  confine  themselves  to  the  Gospel  strictly.  He  diligently 
sought  to  influence  them  to  confine  themselves  to  the  theme  of 
the  Bible,  the  plan  of  salvation.  Whatever  of  History,  Science, 
Philosophy,  etc.,  it  touched  upon,  was  incidental  to  its  one  great 
aim,  which  was  to  reveal  Christ  as  the  Saviour  of  sinners.  His 
theory  was  that  the  word  of  God  is  self-evidencing  and  self- 
protective  and  needs  no  defence  or  apology  at  the  hands  of  any 
man.    Over  and  over  he  said : 

"Young  Brethren,  'preach  the  word ;'  don't  preach  science, 
don't  preach  politics,  don't  preach  philosophy,  don't  even 
preach  theology;  'preach  the  word,'  'preach  the  word.'  " 

Doubtless  many  can  say  the  same  thing,  but  there  Is  one  of 
his  students  who  can  truthfully  say  this  lesson  was  not  lost 
sight  of  even  once  in  his  ministry  of  thirty  years. 

The  resignation  of  several  members  of  the  faculty  left  the 
institution  but  partly  equipped;  and  Dr.  Woodrow  became 
professor  of  Church  Polity.  The  writer  imbibed  his  ecclesi- 
astical principles  almost  exclusively  from  this  eminent  source. 
Dr.  Woodrow's  position  as  to  Church  Government  was  in  sub- 
stance, and  as  near  as  memory  can  recall,  as  follows : 

"I  do  not  believe  in  the  Presbyterian  form  of  government 
because  I  have  made  a  comparative  study  of  all  systems  and  am 
persuaded  that  the  Presbyterian  is  the  wisest  and  best  adapted 
to  men,  but  I  accept  and  adopt  it  because  it  is  Scriptural. 
Having  thoroughly  satisfied  myself  that  Presbyterianism  is  laid 
down  and  inculcated  in  the  word  of  God,  that  is  sufficient  for 
me.  I  have  no  right  to  question  its  wisdom,  or  authority,  and 
I  do  not." 

Once  more  allow  me  to  say,  the  writer  in  this  respect  has 
followed  implicitly  his  great  teacher. 

So  easily  and  ably  Dr.  Woodrow  filled  the  chair  of  any  absent 
professor,  that  it  became  the  current  belief  among  the  students 
that  he  was  not  only  a  specialist  in  his  own  department,  but  was 


118 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


a  specialist  in  every  department.  He  was  generally  regarded 
by  his  students  as  a  universal  genius,  as  much  at  home  in 
Church  Polity  as  in  Natural  Science,  and  as  familiar  with 
Theology  as  with  either. 

In  the  Thursday  evening  Conferences,  conducted  by  the 
faculty,  each  speaking  in  turn,  the  student  body  eagerly 
awaited  the  expression  of  Dr.  Woodrow's  views,  and  ordi- 
narily his  reasoning  was  so  clear  and  irresistible,  that  he 
carried  conviction  and  the  entire  student  body  with  him  in  his 
conclusions. 

Owing  to  serious  throat  trouble,  he  seldom  preached,  but 
when  he  did,  the  sermon  was  never  forgotten.  The  impression 
of  his  sermon  on  Sanctification  and  his  searching  exposition  of 
the  Fifteenth  Psalm,  are  as  fresh  in  the  mind  of  the  writer  as  if 
made  yesterday,  instead  of  thirty  years  ago.  The  tremendous 
power  of  Dr.  Woodrow  over  his  hearers  was  all  the  more 
remarkable  when  one  remembers  his  poor  delivery,  owing  to 
throat  trouble,  his  words  often  being  spoken  almost  in  a 
whisper;  yet  his  words  burned  or  moved  men  as  the  most 
eloquent  oratory  could  not.  The  secret  of  his  power  over  his 
students,  after  making  allowance  for  his  great  ability,  was  the 
conviction  of  his  fearlessness,  his  directness,  and  his  evident 
sincerity.    His  words  are  still  ringing  in  my  ears: 

"I  fear  God ;  I  fear  nothing  else."    It  was  self-evident. 

In  all  the  bitter  and  needless  strife  which  raged  around  him 
and  his  professorship  during  the  Evolution  Controversy,  the 
writer  openly  and  avowedly  sympathised  with  him,  although 
having  not  a  particle  of  sympathy  with  evolution  itself.  That 
which  held  so  many  of  his  students  so  loyally  to  his  support  in 
those  trying  times  was  a  sense  of  indebtedness  to  him  for  his 
invaluable  instruction,  coupled  with  the  belief  that  his  position 
was  misunderstood,  as  well  as  a  strong  desire  to  save  such  a 
matchless  teacher  in  the  service  of  the  Church.  The  fear  that 
he  would  raise  up  a  generation  of  heretics  was  groundless. 
Not  one  of  his  students  ever  drifted  from  the  truth.  Not  one 
ever  listened  to  his  lectures  thoughtfully  but  was  more  thor- 
oughly grounded  in  the  faith,  and  thus  saved  from  the  vagaries 
of  rationalism  and  the  higher  criticism.  The  Church  will  never 
know  the  loss  it  sustained  in  being  deprived  of  his  teaching. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


119 


Time  has  vindicated  him.  The  vast  body  of  the  Christian 
Church  of  all  denominations  has  gravitated  to  his  position ;  and 
when  the  Church  gets  far  enough  away  from  his  times  to  form 
a  calm  estimate  of  his  work  and  teaching,  it  will  realise  that 
our  beloved  Church  gave  to  the  world  one  of  its  greatest  men 
in  the  person  of  Dr.  Tames  Woodrow. 


120 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


An  Appreciative  Estimate. 


BY  THE  REV.  DR.  NEANDER  M.  WOODS. 

It  was  one  of  the  privileges  of  my  life  to  have  been  rather 
closely  associated  with  Dr.  Woodrow  for  several  of  the  more 
exciting  years  of  his  career.  It  was  in  1886  to  1889,  while  I 
was  the  pastor  of  the  First  church  of  Columbia,  South  Caro- 
lina, and  during  the  discussions  raised  by  his  opponents  over 
his  famous  address  on  Evolution.  That  address,  as  I  recall  it, 
had  been  published  by  him  in  1884,  in  response  to  a  formal 
request  of  the  Board  of  Columbia  Seminary.  He  was  a  regular 
attendant  of  my  church  on  Sabbath  mornings ;  and  though  his 
family  was  not  large  enough  to  fill  one  whole  pew,  he  always 
paid  for  two  of  full  size.  In  all  my  ministry  I  have  never  had 
a  more  devout  and  attentive  listener  than  was  Dr.  Woodrow. 
Though  he  was  twenty  years  my  senior  in  age,  and  I  felt  myself 
to  be  but  a  child  beside  him  in  culture  and  ability,  his  manner 
was  so  unassuming  and  docile  that  no  one  not  acquainted  with 
him  would  ever  have  suspected  that  he  knew  any  more  than  the 
speaker  in  regard  to  any  question  under  consideration.  He 
would  sit  there  in  his  pew,  with  that  refined,  gentle  expression 
of  face,  so  familiar  to  all  who  knew  him,  and  listen  as  though 
never  weary  of  the  simple  story  of  salvation  through  Christ. 

For  those  who  knew  this  great  man  well  I  can  offer  nothing 
specially  interesting  or  new;  but  inasmuch  as  his  devoted 
daughter  has  honored  me  with  the  request  that  I  furnish  a  few 
words  for  the  volume  she  is  preparing,  and  as  I  well  know  this 
volume  will  surely  be  perused  by  not  a  few  who  not  only  did 
not  enjoy  a  personal  acquaintance  with  Dr.  Woodrow,  but  who 
may  have  gotten  their  estimate  of  the  man  from  prejudiced  or 
hostile  sources,  I  count  it  a  privilege  to  have  the  opportunity  of 
adding  my  testimony  to  that  of  others  in  behalf  of  him  who 
has  gone  from  us,  and  whom  I  was  proud  to  count  my  friend. 
By  this  is  not  meant  that  he  and  I  were  in  the  fullest  sense 
what  is  understood  by  the  terms  intimate  or  bosom  friends. 
He  doubtless  had  friends  with  whom  he  was  more  intimate  than 
he  was  with  myself.  He  had  many  friends  whom  lie  loved  and 
trusted,  but  it  is  doubtful  if  he  was  on  terms  of  familiarity  with 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


121 


more  than  a  very  few.  There  was  a  certain  dignified  reserve 
about  him  that  kept  one  at  a  little  distance.  His  courtesy  and 
considerateness  towards  those  about  him  were  always  noticea- 
ble. But  he  was  incapable  of  gushing,  and  no  matter  what  the 
provocation  he  never  lost  his  wits. 

For  about  three  years  our  places  of  residence  were  within  a 
square  of  each  other.  I  saw  much  of  him,  and  our  relations 
were  never  anything  but  cordial  and  pleasant,  and  one  of  my 
children  he  baptised  at  my  special  request,  but  I  do  not  believe 
that  either  of  us  ever  broke  bread  with  the  other  in  Columbia. 

The  feature  of  his  character  which  always  struck  me  most 
forcibly  was  the  dominance  of  the  intellectual.  Physically,  he 
did  not  appear  specially  vigorous ;  but  he  had  a  mind  as  robust, 
penetrating,  and  alert  as  one  will  come  in  contact  with  in  a 
lifetime.  Sitting  alone  with  him  in  his  library,  listening  to  him 
while  he  discussed  some  great  question — and  he  was  able  to 
discuss  learnedly  and  entertainingly  almost  any  great  subject 
of  human  interest — with  his  hands  raised  in  front  of  him  and 
the  fingers  lightly  touching  each  other,  one  could  almost  believe 
that  his  very  fingers  were  engaged  in  thinking  and  reasoning. 
There  was  a  clearness  of  ideas,  a  fulness  of  comprehension,  and 
a  thoroughness  of  knowledge  that  made  one  feel  that  he  was 
in  the  presence  of  a  giant  intellect.  Along  with  these  traits 
went  a  marvellous  command  of  perspicuous  English,  and  this 
combination  of  gifts  rendered  him  one  of  the  most  formidable 
of  antagonists  in  debate.  But  with  it  all  he  never  became 
garrulous  or  conceited,  and  usually  was  cool  and  collected. 

But  I  desire  especially  to  bear  this  testimony,  that  this  great 
man's  intellectuality  never,  for  one  day,  drew  him  away  from 
faith.  He  was  as  devout  a  believer  in  the  divine  inspiration  of 
the  Bible — the  whole  Bible — as  I  have  ever  known.  He  was 
an  uncompromising  stickler  for  the  exact  word  of  God.  If 
he  ever  held  or  taught  any  views  that  were  at  all  inconsistent 
with  God's  word  he  could  say,  with  a  clear  conscience,  that  he 
believed  they  were  agreeable  to  that  word.  No  man  ever  had 
less  use  for  skepticism  than  Dr.  Woodrow.  And  no  more 
unwarranted  injustice  was  ever  done  him  than  when  men, 
whom  he  had  long  counted  as  his  brethren,  because  they  could 
not  accept  his  views  as  to  the  possible  mode  in  which  God 


122 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


created  the  b6dy  of  Adam,  were  willing  to  insinuate  that  he 
leaned  to  the  theories  of  destructive  critics  and  atheistical 
scientists.  I  feel  very  sure  that  he  lived  and  died  and  entered 
heaven's  cloudless  light  firmly  believing  in  the  divine  infalli- 
bility of  the  whole  word  of  God. 

One  other  trait  of  his  that  deeply  impressed  me,  as  I  doubt 
not  it  impressed  nearly  all  who  had  an  opportunity  to  see  him  at 
close  range,  and  that  was,  his  fearless  fairness  in  debate.  It 
did  not  seem  as  though  he  cared  a  straw  whether  a  given 
theory  or  opinion  was  upheld  or  opposed  by  his  friends  or  his 
foes.  His  one  aim  was  to  have  truth  prevail,  and  what  he 
conceived  to  be  the  truth  he  would  contend  for  if  he  had  to 
oppose  all  of  his  best  friends.  No  amount  of  opposition  could 
overawe  him;  no  persuasions  of  friends  could  move  him  to 
yield  his  convictions.  And  this  may  serve  to  explain  why  he 
could  argue  a  question  and  be  so  courteous  to  all  who  opposed 
him  that  there  would  be  almost  nothing  in  his  tone  or  bearing 
to  indicate  what  his  personal  feelings  were  towards  his  antagon- 
ists. If  his  words  in  a  debate  left  any  sting  at  all  it  was  never 
due  to  any  disrespectful  language  or  any  undue  vehemence  of 
tone  or  gesture,  but  it  was  only  his  logic,  his  keen  analysis,  and 
the  facts  he  marshalled,  which  were  irresistible.  Had  he  lived 
in  the  sixteenth  century  and  been  placed  in  Luther's  dilemma  at 
the  Diet  of  Worms,  I  am  confident  James  Woodrow  would  have 
stood  by  his  convictions  as  bravely  as  Luther,  though  he  might 
not  have  manifested  the  dramatic  impetuosity  and  vehemence 
of  the  German  Reformer,  and  he  certainly  would  never  have 
asked  for  a  day's  reflection,  as  did  Luther,  as  to  how  to  answer 
a  proposal  to  renounce  his  opinions.  All  the  Pope's  Cardinals 
and  Bishops,  the  German  Emperor  and  his  Princes,  all  com- 
bined, could  not  have  awed  him  for  a  moment.  He  was  a  man 
of  the  stuff  of  which  martyrs  are  made. 

No  man  needs  to  insist  that  Dr.  Woodrow  was  a  faultless 
man — he  himself  would  have  resented  such  a  claim  even  if 
proposed  by  the  best  friends  he  had  in  the  world.  But  he  was, 
without  a  doubt,  one  of  the  ablest  men  that  ever  honored  our 
Southland  and  the  Presbyterian  Church  with  his  life  and  labors. 
He  has  entered  into  the  City  of  God,  and  he  rests  from  his 
labors. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


123 


A  Retrospect. 


BY  THE  REV.  DR.  S.  M.  NEAIy. 

Dr.  Woodrow  was,  in  my  judgment,  in  all  respects  one  of 
the  grandest  men  of  his  day.  Whatever  the  explanation,  he 
was  misunderstood  by  many  of  his  brethren.  It  is  proper, 
therefore,  that  the  story  of  his  life  should  be  put  in  permanent 
form. 

After  abandoning  the  practice  of  law  to  enter  the  ministry,  I 
placed  myself  under  the  care  of  the  Presbytery  of  Memphis, 
and  was  elected  a  commissioner  to  the  General  Assembly,  which 
met  in  Baltimore  in  1868.  As  it  was  my  purpose  to  enter  some 
theological  seminary  in  the  fall  of  that  year,  the  presence  of 
several  professors  afforded  an  opportunity  to  meet  them.  Dr. 
Woodrow  was  there  by  virtue  of  his  being  Treasurer  of  the 
Committees  of  Foreign  Missions  and  Sustentation.  In  dis- 
cussing privately  certain  questions  of  vital  importance  which 
came  before  the  Assembly,  I  was  profoundly  impressed  with 
his  great  ability.  His  power  of  analysis,  the  clear,  concise 
manner  in  which  he  stated  his  views,  the  terse  and  logical 
arguments  with  which  he  enforced  them,  evinced  that  he  was  a 
trained  thinker  and  a  reasoner  of  the  highest  order. 

The  next  fall  found  me  at  Columbia  Seminary,  where,  as  a 
student  under  Dr.  Woodrow,  I  came  into  close  personal  contact 
with  him.  The  closer  one  got  to  him  and  the  better  he  was 
known,  the  more  he  was  appreciated.  His  capacity  for  and 
persistence  in  work  were  simply  marvellous.  He  never  loafed 
or  tolerated  loafers.  This  fact  accounts  for  some  of  his  detrac- 
tors. He  felt  that  his  first  duty  was  to  his  students,  and 
allowed  nothing  to  come  between  them  and  himself.  I  recall 
an  occasion  when  a  student  was  in  deep  perplexity  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  He  was  preparing 
his  trial  sermon  on  that  subject,  and  felt  that  his  argument  did 
not  compel  belief.  In  company  with  another  student  we  went 
to  confer  with  Dr.  Woodrow.  We  found  him  hard  at  work. 
The  student  apologised,  saying  that  we  would  call  again.  "No, 
gentlemen,"  he  said,  "I  am  never  too  busy  to  assist  a  student. 


124 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


My  time  is  always  at  your  disposal."  The  difficulty  stated, 
Dr.  Woodrow  said :  "Brother  R.,  you  are  attempting  the  impos- 
sible. You  cannot  formulate  an  argument  that  will  compel 
belief  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  to  an  unrenewed 
heart.  The  best  you  can  hope  to  do  is  to  state  the  truth  clearly 
and  point  your  hearers  to  him  who  was  lifted  between  the 
heaven  and  the  earth.  To  the  heart  renewed  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  is  readily  perceived."  The 
student  went  away,  relieved  of  his  difficulty  and  happy. 

Some  thought  Dr.  Woodrow  severe.  The  truth  often  seems 
severe,  as  justice  does ;  but  this  is  the  estimate  of  the  delin- 
quent. Truth  and  justice — the  right — are  the  conservators  of 
character  without  which  self-respect  is  lost.  When  occasion 
demanded — under  strong  provocation — he  could  make  reply 
that  cut.  Not  a  whit  more  so,  however,  than  many  of  our 
greatest  men.  All  his  battles  were  forced  upon  him.  He 
never  sought  a  quarrel.  He  was  a  man  of  the  most  delicate 
and  tender  sensibilities.  Scores  of  friends  and  acquaintances 
would  corroborate  this  estimate.  A  delicate  question  in  the 
domestic  relations  of  a  student  arose.  Dr.  Woodrow  was  the 
professor  of  whom  counsel  was  sought.  The  student's  home 
was  some  distance  from  Columbia.  It  would  require  a  week 
to  make  the  round  trip.  It  would  cost  seventy  dollars.  Should 
he  go,  or  seek  to  adjust  matters  by  writing?  Dr.  Woodrow 
said:  "These  relations  are  too  sacred  and  tender  to  take  any 
risk.  You  should  go  home,  and  start  to-night.  If  you  have 
not  the  money  convenient,  I  can  let  you  have  it,  and  you  need 
not  think  of  returning  it."  The  trip  was  made  with  happy 
results. 

It  was,  however,  as  a  teacher  that  he  excelled.  Teachers  are 
very  rare.  There  are  thousands  of  professors.  There  are 
numbers  of  highly  intelligent  men.  There  are  few  scholars. 
Not  all  scholars  are  teachers.  There  are  teachers  who  are  not 
scholars.  Dr.  Woodrow  was  a  teacher  and  a  scholar.  This 
combination  placed  him  in  the  front  rank.  Nicodemus  said  of 
Christ  that  he  was  a  teacher  come  from  God.  Is  it  too  much 
to  say  that  all  teachers  of  the  truth  are  from  God  ?  The  world 
and  alas !  the  Church  have  not  only  often  failed  to  recognise  and 
appreciate  teachers,  but  have  rejected  them. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


125 


Dr.  Woodrow's  reverence  for  the  word  of  God  impressed 
me  as  that  of  few  men  has.  He  bowed  without  question  to  its 
authority,  and  accepted  its  teachings  with  child-like  faith.  I 
testify  unhesitatingly  that  he  did  more  to  strengthen  and  fortify 
my  faith  in  the  Bible  as  the  very  word  of  God,  and  inspired  a 
greater  love  for  it,  than  any  one  I  ever  came  in  contact  with. 
He  taught  that  as  all  truth  is  from  God,  one  set  of  truths  there- 
fore can  not  conflict  with  another  set  of  truths.  The  truths 
of  geography  can  not  conflict  with  the  truths  of  chemistry — 
the  laws  of  astronomy  with  the  laws  of  botany.  So  the  truths 
of  God's  holy  word  which  were  given  to  teach  us  how  we  might 
glorify  and  enjoy  him  can  not  conflict  with  the  truths  of  God 
in  the  natural  sciences.  The  Church  unfortunately  has  at  times 
allowed  herself  to  become  excited  over  the  "working  hypothe- 
ses" of  scientific  investigators,  instead  of  calmly  awaiting  final 
conclusion.  Scientists  themselves  are  best  qualified  to  exploit 
the  "working  hypotheses"  of  their  co-workers.  Has  the 
Church  ever  overthrown  any  settled  conclusion  of  scientists? 
Scientists  themselves  demolish  the  false,  and  when  they  have 
agreed  as  to  the  facts  their  conclusions  have  generally  stood. 

Just  twenty  years  elapse,  and  Dr.  Woodrow  and  I  meet  again 
in  the  same  beautiful  city  of  Baltimore,  at  the  meeting  of  the 
General  Assembly  in  1888.  I  am  again  a  commissioner,  and  he 
is  at  the  bar  of  that  highest  court  of  the  Church  upon  a  charge 
of  heresy.  The  case  had  been  tried  by  the  Church  papers  for 
months,  by  the  Presbytery  and  by  the  Synod.  Able  speeches 
were  made  on  both  sides,  probably  without  effecting  the  change 
of  a  single  vote.  Dr.  Woodrow's  views  were  condemned,  and 
he  was  removed  from  his  chair  in  the  Seminary.  As  I  loved 
my  Church  above  any  earthly  thing,  it  was  the  saddest  day  of 
my  life,  save  one. 

The  State  where  he  lived  recognised  his  worth  as  a  man  and 
a  teacher,  and  placed  him  at  the  head  of  her  great  College, 
where  his  God-given  abilities  were  saved  to  the  Church  and  the 
State. 

I  shall  ever  gratefully  revere  his  memory. 


126 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


The  Testimony  of  a  Son-in-Law. 


BY  THE  REV.  MEI/TON  CLARK. 

My  first  impressions  of  Dr.  Woodrow  were  received  in  child- 
hood. I  do  not  recall  the  fact  of  a  personal  acquaintance 
during  that  period,  but  his  name  was  a  household  word  in  our 
family.  My  father  was  an  intimate  friend  of  Dr.  Woodrow's. 
He  sympathised  with  him  in  his  great  struggle  for  truth,  sup- 
ported him  from  the  beginning  of  the  conflict  to  the  end.  and 
suffered  with  him. 

But  among  the  number  of  his  many  loyal  friends  there  was 
none  more  loyal,  steadfast,  and  jealous  than  my  grandmother, 
and  it  was  through  her  that  I  received  my  first  impressions  of 
the  man  who  was  afterwards  to  exercise  so  great  and  so  whole- 
some an  influence  upon  my  life. 

The  Southern  Presbyterian  came  in  those  days  on  Thursday 
of  each  week.  This  religious  newspaper  was  esteemed  next  to 
the  Bible  and  Shorter  Catechism  in  our  home.  It  was  in  every 
sense  of  the  word  a  Religious  Newspaper. 

From  the  year  1884  on  for  several  years  the  paper  contained 
the  arguments  in  the  "Evolution  Controversy"  pro  and  con. 
My  dear  Grandmother  was  a  great  reader,  and  she  loved  to  read 
aloud.  It  seemed  that  she  could  not  fully  enjoy  the  Southern 
Presbyterian  unless  she  had  an  audience,  for  her  comments 
were  an  essential  part  of  the  proceedings.  There  were  two 
whose  attendance  she  always  secured  at  these  once-a-week 
readings.  The  small  boy  sometimes  came  reluctantly,  for  the 
subject  was  deep  and  the  sittings  protracted ;  but  old  Mary,  the 
faithful  negro  cook,  never  failed.  She  would  hasten  her  work 
in  the  kitchen,  or  leave  it  undone  for  the  time,  that  she  might 
occupy  her  footstool  in  the  corner,  and  hear  "Ole  Miss  Mary" 
read  "de  law  of  evolushun."  Old  Mary  was  strong  on  the 
"white  folks'  doctrine,"  and  would  join  vigorously  with  my 
grandmother  in  her  praise  of  the  men  who  fought  for  the  truth 
with  Dr.  Woodrow,  and  still  more  vigorously  in  denunciation 
of  those  who  opposed  the  truth.  This  was  their  view  of  the 
controversy,  and  the  small  boy  who  sometimes  nodded  during 
the  reading,  but  always  woke  up  at  the  comments,  agreed  with 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


127 


them  then  and  still  believes  that  they  were  right  in  their  judg- 
ment. 

It  was  from  this  source  that  I  learned  of  the  great  fight  that 
he  waged  for  his  convictions  of  the  truth,  and  of  how  he  was 
cruelly  persecuted  and  unjustly  made  to  suffer.  The  statue  of 
the  man  loomed  up  larger  before  me  and  I  knew  him  as  a 
fighter,  battling  against  heavy  odds,  using  the  sword  of  a 
mighty  intellect,  standing  granite-like,  undismayed  and  unafraid 
in  the  midst  of  his  trials  and  defeat. 

Some  years  passed,  and  I  entered  College.  There  I  met  Dr. 
Woodrow  as  the  President.  At  the  first  meeting  I  was 
impressed  with  the  fact  that  I  was  dealing  with  a  man  who 
viewed  even  ordinary  things  in  rather  an  extraordinary  way. 
He  placed  before  me  the  sheet  on  which  students  signed  their 
names  in  order  to  matriculate.  He  told  me  to  examine  it  and 
sign  my  name.  I  glanced  at  it  and  saw  at  the  top  of  the  sheet 
a  printed  paragraph,  which  from  a  hasty  reading  I  gathered 
was  some  resolution  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  or  Faculty.  I 
then  signed  my  name.  Dr.  Woodrow  in  his  quiet,  courteous 
manner  asked  me  if  I  fully  realised  what  I  had  done.  I  replied 
that  I  had  signed  the  roll  which  was  necessary  for  my  matricu- 
lation in  College.  He  asked  me  if  I  fully  understood  the 
obligations  that  I  had  assumed.  There  arose  some  doubt  in 
my  mind  as  to  what  he  was  driving  at,  and  I  so  expressed 
myself.  Then  he  read  slowly  the  act  of  the  Board  to  which  I 
had  subscribed,  where  I  had  agreed  diligently  to  attend  to  all 
of  my  duties  in  College,  to  obey  all  the  laws  of  the  institution, 
and  to  do  a  few  other  things,  which  I  fear  I  never  fully  per- 
formed. "This,"  he  went  on  to  say,  "every  one  who  enters  this 
College  solemnly  promises  to  do,  and  we  will  expect  you  faith- 
fully to  keep  this  obligation,  which  you  now  voluntarily 
assume."  I  went  out  conscious  of  a  jolt,  and  began  then  to 
realise  that  a  College  course  was  a  more  serious  thing  than  I 
had  anticipated. 

At  this  time,  and  throughout  my  first  year  in  College,  while 
my  relations  with  Dr.  Woodrow  were  remote,  he  impressed  me 
as  being  very  stern,  unbending,  and  hard,  as  almost  lacking 
certain  elements  of  humanness.  And  indeed  as  I  came  to 
know  him  more  intimately  I  became  the  more  convinced  that  in 


128 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


reference  to  duty  he  was  uncompromising.  Duty  to  him  was 
a  thing  to  be  done  without  regard  to  cost,  without  thought  of 
consequence.  He  was  unalterably  fixed  in  his  uncompromising 
opposition  to  everything  that  was  wrong,  unjust,  or  mean. 
But  in  everything  else,  as  I  discovered  during  an  intimate  and 
close  acquaintance  which  lasted  for  more  than  a  decade  to  the 
time  of  his  death,  he  was  as  tender  as  a  woman,  as  sympathetic 
as  a  child,  with  a  capacity  for  loving  which  is  unusual  in  the 
world  and  wonderful  in  my  eyes.  The  unwritten  record  of  his 
deeds  of  kindness,  of  his  sympathy  for  the  distressed  and 
afflicted,  would  fill  a  great  volume,  if  written.  His  sympathy 
was  of  that  practical  sort  of  which  James  speaks  in  the  second 
chapter  of  his  epistle.  He  believed  in  showing  his  faith  by  his 
works;  although  it  was  not  his  practice  to  make  a  show  of 
either.  His  good  works  he  ever  concealed.  He  never  failed  to 
confess  his  faith,  and  to  give  a  reason  for  the  faith,  whenever 
the  occasion  arose  which  in  his  judgment  required  it.  His 
sympathy  for  the  poor  never  manifested  itself  in  empty  words, 
although  he  could  speak  words  of  comfort  and  cheer  to  one  in 
trouble  with  a  sweetness  and  power  not  often  seen  in  man ;  but 
there  was  an  intimate  relationship  between  his  sympathy  and 
his  bank  account.  The  only  complete  record  of  his  deeds  of 
benevolence  is  found  on  the  stubs  of  his  cheque  book.  He 
loaned  money  freely  to  ministers,  to  students  in  the  Seminary 
and  College,  to  widows  and  orphans,  to  the  poor — white  and 
black.  Such  loans,  many  of  which  he  never  expected  to 
receive  back,  would  amount  in  all  to  thousands  of  dollars.  His 
own  tastes  were  simple,  his  desires  were  few,  he  spent  but 
little  money  on  himself,  but  he  loved  to  make  others  happy  by 
giving  them  of  his  store  which  he  had  earned  with  such  toil  and 
labor.  But  it  was  done  so  quietly,  so  modestly,  so  willingly, 
that  none  but  those  who  received  knew  aught  of  the  gift. 

As  an  administrator  in  business  affairs  he  manifested  a  fore- 
sight that  was  wonderful;  a  wisdom  that  was  searching  and 
far-reaching;  and  in  his  judgment  there  was  breadth  without 
shallowness,  and  depth  without  narrowness. 

Others  will  tell  of  his  work  as  a  scientist,  and  assign  him  his 
place  of  preeminence  as  a  theologian  and  ecclesiastic.  But  I 
knew  him  best  as  a  teacher  and  a  man.    I  never  knew  a  greater 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES.  129 

teacher  nor  a  better  man.  Xor  do  I  expect  to  meet  his  like 
again  in  this  world.  His  was  a  master  mind,  and  he  was  a 
prince  among  men.  He  was  as  simple  and  unassuming  as  a 
child,  as  modest  and  gentle  as  a  woman,  as  strong  as  a  giant, 
and  as  bold  as  a  lion.  The  versatility  of  his  mind  was  marvel- 
lous. He  could  do  more  things,  and  do  them  all  more  accurately 
than  any  man  I  ever  knew.  And  yet  I  never  saw  him  in  a 
hurry.  Having  a  time  for  everything,  he  always  had  time  for 
everything. 

Among  the  many  helpful  things  that  have  come  to  me 
through  my  intimate  acquaintance  with  Dr.  Woodrow,  nothing 
has  been  more  helpful  or  of  more  permanent  value  than  the 
influence  of  his  profound  and  steadfast  faith  in  spiritual  matters. 
Trained  as  he  was  thoroughly  to  investigate  in  his  scientific 
researches,  to  seek  for  the  facts  and  to  determine  the  causes  if 
possible,  he  could  not  accept  anything  as  true  without  such 
evidence  or  testimony  as  would  warrant  belief.  Therefore  he 
was  a  diligent  student  of  God's  word.  And  after  exhaustive 
investigation,  rigid  examination,  and  earnest  thought,  he 
became  convinced  that  the  Bible  is  God's  revealed  will.  He 
believed  in  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures  as  they  were 
originally  written  by  the  holy  men  of  old  who  were  moved  by 
the  Holy  Spirit.  He  also  believed  that  the  "Confession  of 
Faith"  contains  God's  word,  and  while  it  is  not  infallible  or 
"inspired,"  it  is  the  clearest,  most  accurate,  and  truest  expres- 
sion of  systematised  Scriptural  truth  ever  formulated  by 
uninspired  men.  The  one  thing  in  his  life  that  was  greater 
than  everything  else  was  his  simple,  childlike  faith  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ. 

His  philosophy  of  religion  as  well  as  the  foundation  of  his 
faith  are  found  in  these  verses  which  he  loved  and  so  often 
repeated : 

"And  when  I'm  to  die, 
Receive  me,  I'll  cry, 

For  Jesus  has  loved  me, 
I  cannot  tell  why; 
But  this  I  can  find, 
We  two  are  so  joined 

He'll  not  be  in  glory 
And  leave  me  behind." 


9— w 


130 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


A  Student's  Tribute. 


BY  THE  REV.  DR.  J.  f.  PLUNKET. 

While  a  student  in  the  Columbia  Theological  Seminary  it 
was  my  inestimable  privilege  to  sit  under  Dr.  James  Woodrow. 
As  the  years  since  have  deepened  and  widened  my  knowledge 
of  men  and  things,  Dr.  Woodrow  has  grown  steadily  bigger  and 
bigger.  He  was  incomparably  the  best  teacher  I  ever  had. 
His  learning  was  accurate  and  profound;  his  style  was  clear 
and  direct;  his  examination  of  the  student's  knowledge  fair  and 
somehow  seemed  to  put  the  student  at  his  best ;  his  relations 
to  us,  his  students,  that  of  a  sympathetic  friend  who  was  ever 
ready  to  help  us  to  his  limit.  He  was  a  master  in  Church  His- 
tory ;  but  it  was  in  his  instructions  in  the  department  of  Science 
and  Revealed  Religion  that  he  most  deeply  impressed  me.  His 
belief  in  and  reverence  for  the  whole  Bible  as  the  very  word 
of  God  left  upon  me  a  profound  impression,  and  his  clear 
expositions  of  the  "absence  of  contradiction"  between  Revela- 
tion and  Science  were  so  clear  and  satisfactory  that  many  and 
many  times  since  they  have  enabled  me  to  clear  up  obscurations 
in  the  minds  of  others  who  have  come  to  me  for  enlightenment. 
Dr.  Woodrow  was  among  the  very  great  men  of  our  Church, 
and  he  was  as  good  as  he  was  great.  As  one  profoundly 
impressed  with  my  indebtedness  to  him  I  rise  up  after  a  separa- 
tion of  years  and  call  him  blessed. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


131 


A  Few  Impressions. 


BY  THE  REV.  DR.  W.  J.  M'KAY. 

It  was  my  great  misfortune  to  be  in  the  Seminary  at  Colum- 
bia during  the  time  that  Dr.  Woodrow,  on  account  of  his 
health,  was  forced  to  take  a  rest  from  class-room  work  and 
went  abroad.  So  that  I  was  under  his  hand  only  during  the 
first  and  last  parts  of  my  Seminary  course.  Of  course  I  was 
often  with  him  in  church  work  in  after  life. 

There  were  several  things  about  him  that  strongly  impressed 
me.  One  was  his  deep  personal  piety  and  perfect  reverence 
for  the  revealed  word  of  God.  Another  was  his  passionate 
love  of  truth  and  his  perfect  accuracy  of  statement.  When  he 
was  in  doubt  he  always  used  a  qualifying  word.  When  he 
stated  anything  as  a  fact,  I  never  questioned  it.  It  was  his 
clear  and  accurate  way  of  thinking  that  made  his  opinions  so 
valued  in  every  sphere  of  activity — whether  ecclesiastical,  scien- 
tific, literary,  or  commercial  and  industrial. 

x\nother  marked  feature  was  his  tireless  energy.  He  loved 
to  work.  When  urged  to  take  some  recreation  by  friends  he 
was  accustomed  to  reply:  "My  recreation  is  a  change  of  work." 
His  class-room  work  was  wonderfully  stimulating.  It  was  not 
an  uncommon  thing  to  hear  from  his  students  in  after  years 
such  remarks  as  this :  "Dr.  Woodrow  exercised  the  most 
quickening  influence  upon  my  mind  that  it  ever  experienced." 
As  a  preacher  I  think  some  of  his  sermons  would  take  rank 
with  the  noblest  efforts  of  the  best  preachers  of  his  time. 
When  the  Assembly  met  in  Richmond,  Va.,  I  heard  him  preach 
his  great  sermon  on  "The  Presbyterian  Doctrine  of  the  Bible." 
It  made  a  profound  impression,  and  I  have  often  wished  it 
could  be  put  into  tract  form  and  given  the  circulation  it  merited. 
These  in  very  crude  form  are  some  of  the  many  very  pleasant 
impressions  made  upon  me  by  a  noble  man  of  God  whose 
memory  I  delight  to  honor. 


132 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


The  Opinion  of  a  Friendly  Acquaintance. 


BY  THE  REV.  DR.  ALEXANDER  SPRUNT. 

Dr.  Woodrow's  was  a  most  remarkable  career  of  varied 
usefulness,  the  highest  achievements,  noblest  purposes,  most 
hallowed  influences,  and  tenderest  associations.  He  was 
undoubtedly  a  great  man.  His  greatness  was  not  only  seen  in 
his  gigantic  intellect,  but  in  his  marked  humility  and  undis- 
guised simplicity. 

None  can  ever  know  too  well  of  his  patriotism,  and  devotion 
to  his  adopted  country  in  the  time  of  greatest  needs.  His 
wonderful  ingenuity  was  exercised  in  her  defence,  and  a  most 
valued  service  rendered  in  the  great  unequal  conflict.  His 
consecrated  abilities  in  the  work  of  the  Master  through  the 
mediums  of  the  pulpit,  the  press,  the  class-room,  especially  were 
appreciated  by  thousands  throughout  our  Southland.  For 
years  his  editorials  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  were  read  by 
hundreds  of  families  as  messages  of  comfort,  edification,  and 
instruction,  who  looked  to  him  for  the  truth  in  the  questions 
which  constantly  agitated  the  Church  at  large  and  were  items 
of  interest  throughout  the  religious  world.  It  is  probable  that 
no  class  of  men  appreciated  him  more  than  those  who  gathered 
from  week  to  week  in  his  class-room  and  profited  by  his 
instructions  in  the  subjects  which  enlisted  his  intense  interest 
and  devotion.  How  many  of  the  ministry  of  the  Southern 
Presbyterian  Church  bear  him  in  affectionate  and  grateful 
remembrance  no  one  can  know.  And  as  the  executive  head  of 
South  Carolina  College  he  wielded  an  influence  that  cannot  be 
measured. 

His  industry  and  constant  activity  were  lessons  of  the  richest 
kind  for  old  and  young.  Few  men  worked  harder  than  he  did, 
and  few  men  worked  with  more  pleasure  than  he  seemed  to  get 
out  of  active  service. 

In  the  circle  of  his  friends  he  was  most  highly  appreciated 
and  admired.  This  writer  was  never  a  student  of  his  nor  could 
he  claim  intimacy  of  friendship  with  him,  but  he  was  flattered 
with  the  notice  and  confidence  of  so  great  a  man.    A  friendship 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


133 


was  formed  between  my  father  and  him  as  they  met  several 
times  on  their  voyages  to  and  from  the  "old  country,"  and  a 
strong  sympathy  was  awakened  in  each  heart  for  his  fellow- 
countryman.  So  that  when  the  writer  moved  into  the  State 
and  became  a  member  of  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina,  of  the 
letters  he  received  welcoming  him  to  his  new  associations,  none 
was  more  appreciated  than  the  one  received  from  this  honored 
man,  and  seldom  have  I  received  a  letter  which  gave  me  more 
genuine  pleasure  than  did  his  at  that  time.  After  this,  his 
interest  in  the  work  of  Evangelism  in  the  Synod,  specially  while 
the  writer  was  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Synod  on  this 
subject,  was  a  constant  encouragement  and  inspiration. 

The  work,  varied  and  intense,  of  this  extraordinary  worker 
was  at  last  done,  and  the  end  was  reached.  The  world  is  much 
the  richer  for  his  life  and  labors,  and  his  memory  will  be 
precious  for  years  to  come.  He  has  left  an  enduring  inherit- 
ance, and  many  shall  rise  up  and  call  him  blessed. 


134 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


A  Woman's  Impressions. 

BY  MISS  I.  D.  MARTIN. 

I  think  the  thing  which  impressed  me  most  in  my  dear  and 
revered  friend,  Dr.  Woodrow,  was  his  amazing  humility.  With 
all  his  vast  learning,  great  ability,  and  varied  achievement, 
there  was  never  a  note  of  self.  Everything  which  was  his  was 
accorded  to  his  King.  That  was  the  secret,  I  believe,  of  his 
wonderful  equipoise,  his  station  being  always  at  the  foot  of  the 
Cross. 

Like  all  truly  great  men,  he  was  absolutely  simple.  His 
exquisite  diction  was  never  marred  by  words  of  learned  length 
and  thundering  sound,  or  spoiled  by  foreign  derivatives,  but 
came  from  the  "well  of  English  undefyled,"  as  pure  as  his  own 
pellucid  spirit. 

In  his  preaching  especially  was  this  remarkable.  His  sense 
of  reverence  was  too  high,  the  weight  of  his  message  too  great, 
for  him  to  dare  approach  his  Maker  with  any  attempt  at  oratory 
or  display  of  erudition,  with  any  thought  of  effect. 

On  one  occasion  a  Methodist  woman  accompanied  by  one  or 
two  young  attorneys  went  to  hear  him  preach  a  Baccalaureate 
sermon  before  the  students  of  the  South  Carolina  College.  On 
leaving  the  chapel  the  lady  was  asked  by  the  young  men  what 
she  thought  of  the  sermon.  "I  can  only  say,"  she  replied,  "that 
I  thank  God  I  have  heard  that  man,  acknowledged  to  be  one  of 
the  first  authorities  in  Science  on  the  Continent,  wise  with  the 
wisdom  of  years  of  thought  and  culture,  tell  the  story  of  the 
Cross  and  the  necessity  of  the  New  Birth  as  plainly  and  as 
simply  as  if  I  had  been  at  a  Methodist  camp-meeting." 

His  patriotism  was  as  ardent  as  his  piety  was  sincere.  With 
unfaltering  devotion  he  followed  the  fortunes  of  the  South,  and 
when  the  flag  of  the  Confederate  States  went  down,  over- 
whelmed by  superior  numbers,  he  was  as  true  to  that  Flag  and 
the  principles  it  represented  as  when  the  hopes  of  the  Southern 
Cause  were  high  and  its  success  seemed  sure.  He  had  no 
patience  with  the  mawkish  sentiment  which  would  bid  us  forget 
the  past,  forgive  without  repentance  being  shown,  and  bury  the 
memory  of  the  Cause  for  which  so  many  of  our  best  and 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


135 


bravest  had  given  their  lives.  "What  a  travesty  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion,"  he  was  once  heard  to  exclaim  after  hearing  some 
such  remarks. 

His  catholicity  was  bounded  only  by  the  limits  of  mankind. 
On  being  approached  once  for  aid  to  a  certain  charitable  insti- 
tution he  said:  "I  am  so  glad  to  help  this  enterprise,  because 
you  include  in  it  Jews  and  Roman  Catholics."  And  so  all  who 
were  God's  children  were  near  kin  to  him.  Of  his  unvarying 
kindness  to  and  consideration  for  the  colored  people  scores  will 
bear  witness. 

We  all  pray :  "Forgive  us  as  we  forgive  others."  Dr.  Wood- 
row  lived  it.  The  keenest  torture  of  persecution  wrung  no 
bitter  word  from  him.  Like  his  Lord,  "when  he  was  reviled, 
he  reviled  not  again."  Though  in  mortal  pain,  his  faith, 
courage,  and  patience  only  shone  the  brighter  as  the  fires  waxed 
the  hotter.  Who  can  forget,  when  put  to  the  question  he  was 
asked:  "What  gives  you  most  pleasure  in  life?"  the  sublimity 
of  his  reply  in  the  noble  words :  "A  knowledge  of  an  increasing 
love  for  Christ  my  Saviour." 

His  peculiar  gentleness  of  manner  and  gracious  accessibility 
brought  him  into  close  touch  with  young  people  and  little 
children.  They  loved  him.  It  was  a  beautiful  scene  when  on 
his  death-bed  he  laid  his  hands  on  the  head  of  a  little  boy  and 
blessed  him  in  the  name  of  the  Master  into  whose  joy  he  was 
about  to  enter. 

Of  his  work  and  its  results,  who  can  judge?  Eternity  alone 
can  reveal  the  far-reaching  influence  of  his  life  and  teachings. 
Many  to-day  are  better  because  he  lived. 

There  are  many  whose  faith  has  been  strengthened  and  estab- 
lished because  this  man  of  mighty  intellect,  extended  research, 
and  profound  study,  was  heard  to  say  with  his  own  quiet  force : 
"If  the  Bible  and  Science  come  into  collision,  Science  must  go, 
for  the  truth  of  the  Bible  is  sure,  fixed,  and  unalterable,  and 
endureth  forever." 

There  are  many  who  love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  better 
because  this  great  man  of  Science  loved  him  with  the  heart  of  a 
little  child,  and  died  in  the  faith  and  hope  of  the  Gospel. 


136 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Resolutions  Adopted  by  the  Faculty  of  South  Caro- 
lina College. 


President's  Office, 
University  of  South  Carolina, 
Columbia,  S.  C,  January  30,  1907. 

Mrs.  James  Woodrow. 

My  Dear  Mrs.  Woodrow:  I  hasten  to  send  you  a  Minute 
from  the  records  of  a  meeting  of  the  Faculty,  held  on  the  29th 
inst,  in  which  it  is  sought  to  set  forth  as  best  the  Faculty  could 
its  estimate  of  Dr.  Woodrow  as  a  man  and  as  a  teacher  of  men. 

I  wish  I  could  express  to  you  personally,  dear  Mrs.  Wood- 
row,  my  admiration  and  love  for  the  dear  friend  with  whom  it 
was  my  privilege  to  pass  so  many  years  of  delightful  associated 
work.  In  my  estimation  he  stood  above  all  other  men  that  I 
have  ever  known. 

With  heartfelt  sympathy,  I  am 

Sincerely  yours,  Benjamin  Sloan. 

Resolutions. 

The  death  of  Dr.  James  Woodrow  at  his  home  in  Columbia 
on  the  17th  instant  calls  upon  the  Faculty  to  record  a  grateful 
remembrance  of  one  of  the  most  distinguished  men  that  has 
ever  served  or  adorned  this  institution — one  who  has  departed 
this  life  full  of  years  and  of  labors,  known  and  honored 
throughout  this  country  and  beyond  its  limits. 

Dr.  Woodrow's  life  and  works  are  so  widely  known  and  have 
been  so  fully  recorded  since  his  death,  that  any  recapitulation 
here  is  needless.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  he  was  twice  Professor 
in  this  institution :  first,  from  1869  to  1872,  in  the  University 
of  South  Carolina ;  and  again,  from  1880  to  1897,  in  the  South 
Carolina  College ;  that  from  1891  to  1897,  he  was  President  of 
the  College,  an  office  which,  in  a  spirit  of  sacrifice  to  duty,  he 
accepted  when  the  fortunes  of  the  College  were  at  the  lowest 
ebb,  and  its  prospects  most  gloomy;  and  that,  mainly  by  his 
wise  administration,  its  prosperity  was  restored  and  its  future 
success  made  secure.  As  Professor  and  as  President,  Dr. 
Woodrow  showed  those  remarkable  traits  of  mind  and  charac- 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


137 


ter,  whose  extraordinary  combination  has  made  his  career  so 
distinguished  and  successful  on  other  fields  of  action.  The 
debt  of  this  institution  to  this  illustrious  man  cannot  be  fitly 
expressed,  nor  can  the  impression  of  his  life  and  character  be 
effaced  from  its  history,  or  from  the  memory  of  those  who  were 
associated  with  him : 

Therefore,  be  it  Resolved : 

That  the  Faculty  tender  to  his  wife  and  family  this  expres- 
sion of  obligation  for  his  services  and  of  sympathy  with  their 
loss. 

That  a  copy  be  sent  to  his  family,  and  published  in  the  city 
papers,  and  that  this  record  be  inscribed  on  a  blank  page  in  the 
minutes.  Benjamin  Sloan, 

President. 


138 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Resolutions  Adopted  by  the  Alumni  Association  of 
South  Carolina  College. 


At  a  meeting  of  the  Alumni  Association  of  the  University  of 
South  Carolina  held  in  Columbia,  February  6,  1908,  the 
following  Resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted: 

"Your  committee  appointed  to  prepare  resolutions  respecting 
the  memory  of  the  late  Dr.  James  Woodrow  beg  leave  to  report 
the  following: 

"That  James  Woodrow  was  born  May  30,  1828,  at  Carlisle, 
England,  and  died  January  17,  1907,  at  Columbia,  S.  C.  He 
was  a  professor  in  this  institution  from  1869  to  1872  and  again 
from  1880  to  1897.  In  1891  he  was  elected  president  of  South 
Carolina  College,  and  discharged  the  duties  of  that  office  with 
conspicuous  ability  until  his  resignation  in  June,  1897.  Of  his 
numerous  and  magnificent  labors  in  other  fields,  we  deem  it 
unnecessary  here  to  speak. 

"Born  on  foreign  soil  and  educated  in  Northern  States,  yet 
the  life  of  Dr.  Woodrow  is  forever  linked  with  the  history  of 
this  State  and  of  this  institution.  He  volunteered  for  service 
in  the  Confederate  army,  his  scientific  attainments  were  used  to 
great  practical  benefit  in  the  pharmaceutical  laboratory  at 
Columbia,  and  his  home  was  lost  in  the  common  ruin  of  Colum- 
bia at  Sherman's  invasion.* 

"As  a  teacher  Dr.  Woodrow  was  patient,  exact,  inspiring; 
was  modest,  simple,  direct;  he  was  practical,  deliberate,  and 
conservative.  It  was  impossible  for  a  student  to  impose  upon 
Dr.  Woodrow.  He  was  indulgent  of  dullness,  tolerant  even  of 
inattention,  but  scornful  of  superficiality.  With  him  a  little 
knowledge  was  truly  a  dangerous  thing.  Such  a  pretence  to 
him  was  a  form  of  lie,  and  with  him  scrupulous  and  complete 
truthfulness  and  honesty  were  the  beginning  and  the  end  of 
all  character. 

"As  a  scholar  the  wide  fame  of  Dr.  Woodrow  rests  upon  a 
solid  foundation.  The  versatility  of  his  intellectual  nature  was 
no  less  remarkable  than  his  profound  research.    While  the 

*Dr,  Woodrow's  home  was  not  built  until  four  years  after  the  war. — 
Editor. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


139 


physical  sciences  were  his  first  love,  he  took  all  learning  for  his 
field.  There  is  no  department  in  the  University  over  which  he 
might  not  have  presided  with  commanding  ability. 

"As  a  disciplinarian  Dr.  Woodrow  believed  in  the  'honor 
system.'  He  desired  that  students  should  be  s^lf-governing. 
How  often  did  he  say:  'You  are  gentlemen  in  your  fathers' 
homes  and  in  your  friends'  parlors ;  then  you  must  be  gentle- 
men in  a  college  provided  by  the  State  for  culture  and  refine- 
ment.' 

"But  as  a  man,  or  a  citizen,  and  as  a  Christian  exemplar,  Dr. 
Woodrow  towers  above  even  his  own  scholarly  attainments ;  his 
single-minded  devotion  to  truth  and  duty  was  heroic.  Though 
charitable,  his  giving  was  without  ostentation,  and  the  number 
of  needy  students  whom  he  assisted  will  never  be  known.  His 
walk  and  conversation  before  all  men  was  godly.  He  was  no 
respecter  of  persons  in  his  elegant  courtesy  toward  all.  He 
was  never  known  to  speak  to  even  the  humblest  student  upon 
the  campus  without  lifting  his  hat.  He  often  remarked  that 
the  15th  Psalm  contained  the  complete  code  of  a  gentleman. 
In  his  death  we  have  sustained  a  great  loss,  but  he  has  left  us  a 
priceless  heritage  of  example  and  inspiration.  The  work  of  his 
hands  has  been  established.  A  good  and  faithful  servant  has 
passed  to  his  eternal  reward. 

"Be  it,  therefore,  Resolved,  That  this  brief  estimate  of  the 
life  work  of  Dr.  James  Woodrow  be  spread  upon  the  minutes 
of  our  proceedings. 

"Resolved,  second,  That  a  copy  thereof  be  delivered  to  the 
family  of  the  honored  dead. 

"Resolved,  third,  That  copies  thereof  be  delivered  to  the 
Board  of  Trustees,  to  the  Faculty,  and  to  the  daily  newspapers 
for  publication." 

John  J.  McSwain,  Chairman, 
Chas.  C.  Wilson, 
Andrew  C.  Moore, 

Committee. 


140 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


A  Colleague's  Tribute. 


BY  DR.  E.  S.  JOYNES. 

In  undertaking  to  express  my  estimate  of  my  late  friend  and 
former  colleague,  Dr.  James  Woodrow,  I  find  it  difficult  to  say 
what  traits  of  his  remarkable  character  had  most  impressed 
themselves  upon  my  mind.  This  results  from  the  fact  that 
while  Dr.  Woodrow  exhibited  many  very  remarkable  qualities 
of  both  mind  and  character,  these  were  so  blended  and  har- 
monised in  his  personality  that  hardly  any  one  seems  especially 
conspicuous  above  others.  Indeed,  the  remarkable — even  won- 
derful— characteristic  of  Dr.  Woodrow  was  his  extraordinary 
union  of  so  many  diverse,  sometimes  seemingly  opposite, 
qualities  of  excellence,  and  hence  his  conspicuous  success  in  so 
many  different  lines  of  activity. 

Dr.  Woodrow  possessed  an  unusually  strong  and  clear  intel- 
lect. He  was  a  thorough  scholar  in  the  classical  languages 
and  in  Hebrew,  in  English  literature,  and  in  modern  languages. 
His  scholarship  in  English  was,  indeed,  critical  and  accurate  to 
an  unusual  degree.  He  was  a  forcible  writer,  a  strong  debater, 
an  impressive  preacher.  Especially  he  was  a  scientist — a 
trained  student  and  teacher  in  the  physical  sciences,  and 
through  all  his  life  was  devoted  to  the  pursuit  and  progress  of 
scientific  truth.  He  bowed,  with  equal  intelligence  and  equal 
devotion,  before  the  Revelation  of  Nature  and  the  Revelation 
of  Scripture. 

Dr.  Woodrow  possessed  also  in  high  degree  that  broader 
intelligence  which  is  known  as  common  sense.  His  judgment 
in  affairs  was  sound,  clear,  and  just.  He  was  rarely  mistaken 
in  regard  to  practical  affairs — in  proof  of  which  is  not  only 
his  personal  success,  but  the  universal  confidence  felt  by  the 
community  in  his  opinion  or  advice  on  any  question  of  business 
policy  or  finance.  Therefore  Dr.  Woodrow  was  supremely 
successful  in  the  business  affairs  of  life,  not  only  for  himself, 
but  for  the  corporate  enterprises  which  he  so  largely  advised 
or  directed. 

Dr.  Woodrow  possessed  in  an  eminent  degree  the  high 
virtue  of  self-control.    Perhaps  I  should  say  that  the  same 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


141 


extraordinary  power  of  will  that  secured  his  personal  success 
and  his  influence  over  others,  was  most  marked  in  its  ordered 
power  over  himself.  This  strong  will,  united  also  with  strong 
motive  powers,  was  controlled  by  a  perfect  self-possession  and 
by  an  enlightened  and  inflexible  conscience.  I  have  seen  him 
under  the  most  trying  provocation ;  yet  never  for  a  moment  did 
he  lose  his  own  self-control,  nor,  therefore,  the  control  of  the 
situation. 

Dr.  Woodrow  was  a  remarkable  example  of  the  triumph  of 
intellectual  and  moral  power  over  physical  conditions.  He  was 
always  a  feeble  man — more  than  once  he  had  been  given  over 
to  the  prospect  of  early  death.  Yet  he  lived,  in  unbroken 
activity,  to  a  high  age  (seventy-eight).  This  was  the  result  of 
a  will  power  which  trained  him  to  perfect  habits  of  life — to 
economy  of  strength  and  of  time.  Thus  his  personal  habits — 
of  diet,  of  recreation,  of  study,  and  of  business — were  perfectly 
regulated.  He  was  the  soul  of  punctuality.  I  never  knew 
him  to  be  late  or  to  miss  an  appointment.  To  this  habit,  he 
told  me,  he  attributed  much  of  his  success,  and  nothing  came 
so  near  breaking  his  good  temper  as  vexations  arising  from 
those  thieves  of  time  who  are  always  behind  hand.  It  was  in 
virtue  of  this  excellent  habit  that  Dr.  Woodrow  was  able  to 
attend  successfully,  at  the  same  time,  to  so  many  affairs. 

Dr.  Woodrow's  power  of  action — of  sustained  and  varied 
action — was  truly  wonderful.  Even  as  the  result  of  his 
remarkable  combination  of  qualities,  of  his  self-control,  and 
therewith  of  his  perfect  control  of  all  his  faculties,  and  of 
his  trained  habits  of  regularity  and  punctuality — with  all  these 
his  actual  achievements  remain  most  remarkable.  When  I 
first  knew  him  he  was  professor  in  the  Theological  Seminary, 
professor  in  South  Carolina  College,  editor  of  a  weekly  paper, 
editor  of  a  quarterly  magazine,  superintendent  of  a  large 
printing  house,  director  in  a  bank,  and  besides  all  this,  was 
bearing  the  brunt  of  a  bitter  theological  controversy.  Yet  he 
did  all  this  and  did  it  all  well — met  every  day  and  every 
responsibility  with  punctuality  and  with  success.  At  the  same 
time  he  was  managing  a  large  and  growing  personal  estate. 
Surely,  this  is  an  extraordinary  record,  possible  to  none  other 


142 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


than  an  extraordinary  man.  Though  with  some  changes,  Dr. 
Woodrow's  manifold  activity  continued  up  to  his  latest  years. 

In  1891  Dr.  Woodrow  was  elected  president  of  South  Caro- 
lina College,  and  it  was  after  this  time  that  I  knew  him  most 
intimately.  He  found  the  institution  almost  dying  (from 
causes  needless  to  mention  here)  ;  he  left  it,  on  his  retirement 
in  1897,  vigorous  and  growing.  There  is  no  more  difficult 
office  ithan  that  of  a  college  president ;  in  this  case  were  added 
also  the  duties  of  instruction,  as  head  of  a  department.  Sur- 
rendering all  other  service,  Dr.  Woodrow  now  devoted  himself 
wholly  to  his  work  in  the  College,  in  which  his  character  and 
influence  shone  with  conspicuous  results.  Outside  of  and 
within  the  College  he  had  some  special  difficulties  to  meet,  and 
he  met  them  with  unfailing  courage,  with  patience,  with  gentle- 
ness, with  inflexible  purpose,  and  always  with  final  success. 
This  perfect  patience  and  gentleness,  under  trial  and  provoca- 
tion, I  should  perhaps  have  mentioned  earlier  as  one  of  his  most 
striking  qualities ;  yet  it  was  only  a  manifestation  of  his  habitual 
self-control.  But  his  purpose  never  yielded.  "A  hand  of  iron 
under  a  glove  of  silk"  was  a  graphic  description  of  him  by  one 
of  his  earlier  colleagues  (Rev.  Dr.  Adger). 

From  this  strong  self-control  resulted  an  habitual — perhaps 
an  excessive — reticence  and  reserve,  which  caused  Dr.  Wood- 
row  to  be  widely  misunderstood  by  those  who  knew  him  but 
slightly.  To  the  outer  world  he  seemed  to  be  cold — perhaps 
even  selfish.  Vet  no  man  was  more  warm-hearted,  no  man 
more  generous,  or  more  responsive  to  every  just  appeal  to  his 
sympathy  or  charity.  The  worM  will  never  know  his  gifts  to 
the  needy,  his  contributions  to  good  works,  or  his  self-sacrifices 
as  a  citizen  and  as  an  official.  Indeed,  Dr.  Woodrow  was  a 
man  of  strong  natural  impulses ;  but  these  impulses  had  been 
subjected  to  the  control  of  an  inflexible  will  and  an  exacting 
conscience.  Only  his  most  intimate  friends  knew  the  extent 
of  this  control  over  a  naturally  strong  temper  and  tender  heart. 

With  all  these  qualities  conspicuously  manifested  in  official, 
public,  and  business  life,  James  Woodrow,  the  man,  was 
supremely  a  gentleman.  He  was  kind,  courteous,  gentle,  sym- 
pathetic, and  generous.  No  good  cause  appealed  to  him  in 
vain.    No  friend  ever  met  from  any  other  a  kinder  or  warmer 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


143 


welcome.  I  was  much  with  him  during  his  college  precidency 
and  in  his  later  years.  His  personal  intercourse  was  ever 
delightful,  and  his  influence  over  all  who  came  near  him  was 
wholesome  and  elevating.  Of  his  conspicuous  Christian  char- 
acter, or  of  his  religious  opinions  or  influence,  it  does  not 
become  me  to  speak.  But,  as  I  now  remember  him,  and  miss 
him,  I  am  thankful  that  I  knew  him — that  sometimes  I  was 
able  to  serve  and  help  him — that  to  the  last  I  was  honored  with 
his  friendship  and  confidence — and  that  I  am  now  permitted  to 
offer  this  humble  tribute  to  his  memory. 


144 


DR.  JAMDS  WOODROW. 


Some  Personal  Impressions  and  Recollections. 


BY  MR.  J.  J.  M'SWAIN. 

During  a  College  course  of  four  years,  from  1893  to  1897, 
and  with  relations  toward  Dr.  James  Woodrow  more  intimate 
than  those  of  the  ordinary  student  with  the  president,  I  came  to 
know  fairly  well  the  chief  factors  in  his  character.  At  that 
time  he  was  approximately  between  the  years  of  sixty-five  and 
sixty-nine  in  age.  He  had  established  a  reputation,  had  built 
his  fortune,  and  was  rendering  a  few  more  years  of  service 
before  laying  down  life's  labors.  The  long  and  trying  conflict 
which  had  been  waged  around  him  as  a  central  figure  had  sub- 
sided. Some  of  its  chief  actors  had  passed  away.  What  he 
said,  and  what  he  did,  at  this  time  of  life,  and  under  these 
circumstances,  would  naturally  be  truly  expressive  of  his  char- 
acter. 

I  was  struck,  upon  being  introduced  to  him  when  I  entered 
College,  with  the  uniform  courtesy  and  consideration  he  dis- 
played for  all  students,  Freshmen  and  Seniors  alike.  In  his 
study,  he  personally  answered  every  rap  at  the  door,  and  after 
attending  to  business,  requested  each  visitor  to  stay  longer,  and 
escorted  each  one  to  the  door,  and  always  shook  hands  with  the 
parting  guest.  He  invariably  lifted  his  hat  in  recognition  of 
every  student  he  passed  on  the  campus  or  on  the  street.  It  was 
a  courtesy  not  alone  of  mere  habit,  but  a  sincere  token  of  the 
respect  of  which  he  thought  every  student  should  be  worthy. 
He  thought  of  students,  not  as  mere  boys,  nor  as  mere  men, 
but  as  seekers  with  him  after  truth.  Of  course  a  majority  of 
the  students  were  not  seekers  after  truth,  but  he  thought  that 
they  should  be,  and  he  respected  them,  not  for  what  they  were 
in  fact,  but  for  the  ideal  which  he  entertained  for  all. 

Again,  Dr.  Woodrow  was  scrupulously  prompt  in  meeting 
every  engagement  and  appointment.  A  few  minutes  before  the 
hour  fixed  for  the  weekly  meeting  of  the  faculty,  he  could  be 
seen  walking  with  quiet  dignity  down  the  central  path  of  the 
campus  leading  from  his  residence  toward  the  library,  and  when 
one  saw  him  it  was  about  four  o'clock,  irrespective  of  what 
one's  watch  or  the  town  bell  might  say.    He  went  regardless 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


145 


of  rain  or  snow.  I  do  not  remember  that  he  was  ever  too  sick 
to  go.  No  outside  business  or  transactions  ever  kept  him 
away.  As  it  was  with  faculty  meeting,  so  it  was  with  the 
morning  chapel  exercises  and  every  class  he  taught.  I  often 
heard  him  say,  that  no  man  had  a  right  to  keep  another  waiting 
to  fill  an  engagement,  as  it  was  robbing  that  other  of  his  time. 

Dr.  Woodrow  was  always  master  of  himself.  Though 
possessed  of  a  most  sensitive  nature,  though  highly  appreciative 
of  the  love  and  esteem  of  his  fellow-men,  though  he  suffered 
agony  untold  when  they  misrepresented  him  and  slandered  him, 
yet  to  all  outward  appearances  he  was  ever  as  calm  as  a  spring 
morning.  I  have  known  many  to  express  the  belief  that  Dr. 
Woodrow  was  a  stern,  unsympathetic,  unfeeling  tyrant;  that 
he  was  severe,  puritanical,  and  illiberal ;  that  he  could  not  enter 
into  the  common  feelings,  hopes,  and  ambitions  of  men.  Such 
conception  is  wrong.  He  was  entirely  human,  and  understood 
both  in  person  and, by  observation  all  of  the  ordinary  human 
emotions.  But  for  him,  it  was  one  thing  to  feel  and  understand 
them,  and  another  thing  to  permit  himself  to  yield  to  them. 
He  deliberately  calculated  the  relative  value  of  every  fact 
entering  into  his  life,  and  chose  those  things  which  seemed  to  be 
of  supremest  concern.  To  illustrate,  I  heard  him  say  that 
desultory  reading  and  the  enjoyment  of  general  literature  and 
the  haphazard,  poetical  study  of  nature  lured  him  most  power- 
fully; but  he  repressed  such  inclinations  in  order  to  give  time 
for  systematic  and  deliberate  research  for  fundamental  truth. 

Of  all  the  many  qualities  which  entered  into  his  marvellous 
nature,  I  think  his  passion  for  truth  in  every  field  of  research 
was  controlling.  It  seemed  to  possess  him  completely.  To 
every  statement,  however  plausible,  or  however  pleasant,  he 
rigidly  put  the  query:  "Is  it  true?"  He  believed  that  truth 
will  make  men  free ;  and  truth  to  him  was  not  what  other  men 
had  pronounced  it,  not  what  councils,  or  learned  doctors,  or 
governmental  authority  had  declared;  but  what  a  cool,  logical 
research  revealed.  As  a  dogmatical  defender  of  mere  doctrines 
already  pronounced,  he  never  posed;  but  as  an  expositor  of 
principles  which  his  independent  study  had  enabled  him  to 
verify,  he  stood  as  firm  as  granite. 


10— w 


146 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


He  did  not  go  about  with  a  chip  on  his  shoulder,  ready  to 
challenge  every  man  who  differed  with  him  in  opinion.  Once 
when  I  asked  him  for  some  of  the  pamphlets  which  expressed 
his  views  on  evolution,  in  order  to  carry  them  to  my  father  to 
read,  he  laughingly  asked,  "Does  he  wish  to  imbibe  some  of  the 
poison  ?"  But  he  gladly  gave  them  to  me,  and  I  have  them  as 
a  precious  keep-sake  at  this  hour.  He  never  referred  of  his 
own  accord  to  the  great  controversy  in  which  he  participated  on 
that  subject;  and  if  another  brought  up  the  subject,  he  quietly 
explained  the  issues,  modestly  stated  his  own  position,  and 
never  spoke  against  those  who  had  been  active  in  misrepresent- 
ing him. 

In  this  connexion  it  is  fitting  to  state  that  Dr.  Woodrow  was 
a  devout  Christian  and  a  bold  defender  of  the  inspiration  of  the 
Bible.  His  views  on  science  were  mere  matters  of  science  to 
him,  just  as  his  business  transactions  were  mere  business.  But 
his  religious  views  rested  on  as  simple  and  as  natural  a  faith  as 
that  of  a  child.  He  was  not  a  mere  theist  as  some  may  think, 
but  he  believed  the  Bible  to  be  the  revelation  of  God's  will,  and 
he  believed  Jesus  to  be  the  incarnate  Son  of  Jehovah;  and  he 
trusted  with  unreserved  faith  in  the  saving  power  of  Christ. 
More  than  this  Christ  himself  did  not  require ;  more  than  this 
man  and  Churches  cannot  require. 

Dr.  Woodrow  was  not  a  Christian  for  reasons  of  mere  con- 
venience, or  advantage,  or  hereditary  influence.  He  was  a 
Christian  from  deep  and  profound  conviction.  There  was  a 
reason  for  the  faith  that  was  in  him.  He  did  not  take  up  the 
ministry  as  a  calling  or  profession,  but  was  ordained  in  order 
that  he  might  do  missionary  work  among  the  poor  people  who 
lived  near  where  he  was  teaching.  He  went  to  the  Seminary  of 
his  Church  at  Columbia  with  hesitation  and  misgiving.  His 
salaries  in  other  pursuits,  and  his  financial  success  in  business, 
rendered  him  entirely  free  from  any  inclination  to  use  his 
Christian  profession  for  private  ends.  I  remember  that  the 
first  day  of  each  four  years'  session,  and  occasionally  when  the 
absence  of  the  Chaplain  made  it  proper  for  Dr.  Woodrow  to 
conduct  the  morning  prayer  service,  he  each  time  selected  the 
Fifteenth  Psalm,  and  I  have  heard  him  often  say  that  this 
Psalm  contains  the  complete  code  of  a  gentleman. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


147 


The  sense  of  official  propriety,  and  the  obligation  to  recognise 
the  rights  of  all  people,  were  deeply  impressed  on  Dr.  Wood- 
row's  character.  "Render  to  every  man  his  due"  was  a  vital, 
active  principle  with  him.  To  pay  one's  debts,  to  meet  all 
business  obligations,  to  observe  the  property  rights  of  all  men, 
was  to  him  a  sacred  duty.  I  remember  when  the  militia  had  an 
uncalled-for  clash  with  the  students  on  the  ball-ground  of  the 
College,  and  when  the  Adjutant  and  Inspector  General  ordered 
the  militia  to  clear  the  field  by  driving  the  students  from  their 
own  play-ground,  how  deeply  Dr.  Woodrow  was  moved.  He 
was  absent  from  the  College,  and  from  the  city,  when  it  hap- 
pened, but  returned  that  night,  and  was  informed  how  the 
students  had  been  treated;  how  one  of  them  was  supposed  to 
be  lying  at  the  point  of  death ;  how  one  of  the  Professors  had 
been  run  over  by  a  mounted  officer ;  and  how  the  militia  had 
marched  off  as  if  in  triumph.  I  now  realise  how  a  little  for- 
bearance on  both  sides  would  have  prevented  the  uncalled-for 
clash.  But  next  morning  Dr.  Woodrow  addressed  the  students, 
and  it  was  the  most  impassioned  speech  that  I  ever  heard.  It 
would  be  hard  to  find  its  equal  in  the  annals  of  history.  He 
said  in  substance: 

"Young  gentlemen :  Upon  my  return  home,  I  learned  what 
happened  to  you  and  one  of  your  number  in  my  absence.  I 
was  inexpressibly  shocked  to  learn  that  the  very  grounds  which 
had  been  set  apart  for  your  amusement  and  pleasure  were 
ruthlessly  and  violently  invaded  by  armed  force,  and  that  one 
of  your  honored  professors  was  run  over  and  came  near  being 
seriously  injured,  and  that  one  of  your  number  now  lies  per- 
haps at  the  point  of  death.  When  I  consider  that  this  insolent 
and  dastardly  trespass  was  committed  by  some  of  the  public 
officials  of  our  State,  by  those  who  are  especially  charged,  by 
their  oath  under  the  law,  to  protect  the  lives  and  rights  of  our 
people,  when  I  consider  that  you  were,  as  it  were,  in  your  own 
castle,  upon  your  own  land,  my  indignation  rises  almost  beyond 
bounds.  That  defenseless  and  innocent  boys  should  be  driven 
from  their  own  playground  by  a  body  of  armed  soldiery,  that 
the  head  of  the  military  department  of  the  State  gave  the  order 
to  these  soldiers  to  drive  you  from  your  own  playground,  is  a 
black  and  indelible  blot  upon  the  good  name  of  South  Carolina. 


148 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


If  boys  should  fall  out  and  fight  among  themselves,  I  would 
blame  both  sides ;  and  if  men  should  dispute  and  engage  in  a 
personal  difficulty,  I  know  that  each  would  be  partially  at  fault ; 
but  here,  while  you  were  engaged  in  a  pleasant  and  proper 
pastime,  for  the  rest  of  your  minds  and  the  strengthening  of 
your  bodies,  while  you  were  where  you  ought  to  be,  and  behav- 
ing as  you  ought  to  behave,  to  be  encroached  upon,  assaulted, 
and  swept  from  the  field  by  organised  armed  soldiery,  is  a  crime 
upon  civilisation.  I  pledge  you  here  now  as  the  humble  ser- 
vant of  this  State,  and  as  in  a  sense  your  protector,  that  this 
insult  and  wrong  shall  not  go  unavenged,  but  that  the  people  of 
this  State  shall  know  how  great  has  been  your  provocation,  and 
how  unjust  has  been  your  suffering.  I  pledge  you  that  the 
people  of  this  State  shall  have  the  information  from  which  they 
may  come  to  a  proper  conclusion,  and  place  the  responsibility 
for  this  outrage  where  it  belongs,  and  give  censure  to  whom 
censure  is  due. 

"I  have  spoken  not  to  inflame,  but  to  console ;  not  to  arouse 
your  passions,  but  to  approve  your  conduct.  I  beg  now  that 
you  leave  to  me  and  to  others  in  authority  the  solemn  duty  to 
place  the  blame  on  those  responsible  for  this  affair,  and  that 
your  resentment  be  not  permitted  to  lead  you  into  any  indiscreet 
and  unwise  conduct.  Let  older  and  wiser  heads  deal  with  this 
situation,  and  the  outcome  is  bound  to  result  in  your  vindica- 
tion and  in  the  condemnation  of  others." 

In  his  government  of  students,  or  rather  in  his  ideal  of  their 
government,  Dr.  Woodrow  believed  in  the  "honor  system." 
It  seemed  to  him  strange  that  a  young  man  who  was  making 
sacrifices,  or  whose  parents  were  making  sacrifices,  that  he 
might  secure  an  education,  should  need  rules,  and  officers  to 
enforce  them,  as  to  where  he  should  go,  when  he  should  study, 
how  long  he  should  study,  etc.  He  believed  that  education  is 
not  only  filling  the  mind  with  facts  from  books,  or  from  obser- 
vation, but  is  also  a  discipline  in  self-government.  He  believed 
that  so  long  as  a  student  or  a  body  of  students  could  govern 
themselves,  it  was  much  better  for  them,  even  as  a  part  of 
education.  He  believed  that  discipline  administered  by  students 
was  the  severest  possible  punishment.  I  have  heard  him  say 
that  for  the  faculty  to  expel  a  student  was  insignificant  as 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


149 


punishment,  in  comparison  with  punishment  suffered  by  a 
student  who  might  be  asked  by  his  fellow-students  to  withdraw 
from  college,  because  of  immoral  conduct.  He  realised  that 
their  action  was  often  impulsive  and  ill-considered ;  but  his 
effort  was  to  elevate  their  ideals,  and  to  inspire  them  to  a  more 
calm  and  judicial  action. 

This  ideal  in  the  government  of  a  student  body  grew  out  of 
the  ideal  that  Dr.  Woodrow  entertained  of  civil  government. 
He  maintained  that  the  true  limit  of  governmental  function  is 
typified  by  the  policeman.  In  other  words,  he  said  the  govern- 
ment should  merely  restrain  the  strong  and  vicious,  and  punish 
them  for  their  misdeeds.  He  did  not  believe  in  a  paternal  form 
of  government.  He  thought  the  people  should  be  allowed  to 
work  out  their  own  progress  by  their  own  independent  effort. 
He  thought  it  a  mistake  for  the  government  to  impose  on  the 
people  institutions  or  systems  which  the  people  could  inaugu- 
rate and  execute  without  governmental  aid.  I  never  heard  him 
explain  his  position  with  reference  to  public  education.  Know- 
ing his  views  along  this  line,  I  feel  sure  he  would  have 
opposed  compulsory  education.  Still  he  was  not  a  mere 
theorist  or  dreamer.  He  measured  the  value  of  everything  by 
its  results.  He  always  considered,  however,  ultimate  results, 
and  not  mere  first  results.  To  illustrate:  I  remember  that  I 
asked  him  once  what  he  thought  of  the  "Keeley  cure,"  if  he  did 
not  think  it  useless  to  deprive  a  person  of  the  appetite  for 
strong  drink  by  drugs,  without  the  exercise  of  will  power,  so 
that  when  the  effect  of  the  drug  had  died  away,  the  person 
might  return  to  the  use  of  strong  drink,  and  be  a  more  hopeless 
victim  than  before.  He  answered:  "Your  argument  seems 
good,  but  the  results  do  not  wholly  justify  it.  I  know  of 
several  men  who  took  the  cure,  and  after  many  years  have 
never  returned  to  strong  drink,  and  are  useful  citizens.  If 
such  cure  has  saved  one  good  man  from  the  grip  of  his  appetite 
for  strong  drink,  it  cannot  be  condemned." 

As  a  teacher,  Dr.  Woodrow's  superiority  was  marked.  He 
was  patient,  exact,  and  inspiring;  but  he  insisted  upon  honesty 
and  thoroughness  in  the  student.  He  was  modest,  simple,  and 
direct;  never  seeking  to  impress  the  student  with  his  own 
masterful  knowledge  of  the  subject,  but  leading  the  class  along 


150 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


as  though  he  himself  were  gaining  his  first  impressions.  While 
he  was  indulgent  toward  the  dull,  tolerant  toward  the  indiffer- 
ent, he  was  scornful  of  the  superficial  pretender.  To  him  a 
little  knowledge  was  truly  a  dangerous  thing.  For  a  student 
to  pretend  to  know  that  which  he  had  not  seriously  and  care- 
fully studied,  and  to  seek  to  impose  on  his  teacher  by  guessing 
and  by  idle  questioning,  was  with  Dr.  Woodrow  little  short  of 
a  deliberate  lie.  It  is  an  old  ruse  of  a  certain  class  of  students 
to  seek  favor  by  flattering  the  teacher,  and  to  waste  time  by 
asking  idle  questions,  and  to  seek  to  impress  their  originality 
on  the  teacher  and  the  class,  by  debating  with  the  teacher 
difficulties  which  a  little  serious  study  would  dissipate.  None 
of  this  nonsense  was  ever  practised  on  Dr.  Woodrow.  He 
would  either  directly  condemn  the  tactics,  or  freeze  it  out  in 
such  a  way  as  to  leave  no  doubt  upon  the  minds  of  the  class 
as  to  what  he  thought  of  the  procedure.  There  were  other 
teachers  in  the  College  who  seemed  rather  to  enjoy  such  diver- 
sions, and  many  a  good  hour  was  practically  lost  by  this  enter- 
tainment. 

I  have  often  thought  that  the  success  of  Dr.  Woodrow 
financially  was  an  evidence  of  his  powers  hardly  short  of  his 
attainments  as  a  scholar.  The  reason  for  this  conclusion  is 
that  sometimes  the  student  and  scientist  is  entirely  indifferent 
to  financial  prosperity,  and  often  dies  a  pauper.  Dr.  Woodrow 
was  not  a  miser,  he  was  not  a  skin-flint,  he  was  not  a  hard 
creditor.  I  have  heard  it  said  that  he  never  presented  a  "dun" 
for  a  past  due  debt  to  any  one  who  owed  him  money.  He 
surely  presented  statements  of  account,  even  though  he  might 
not  have  written  "duns,"  or  made  personal  appeals  to  debtors. 
In  my  business  relations  with  him  he  seemed  to  be  indifferent, 
and  left  with  me  the  keeping  of  the  accounts.  For  money  that 
I  owed  him,  he  refused  to  accept  any  interest.  He  was  a 
director  in  several  business  enterprises,  and  for  many  years 
President  of  the  Central  National  Bank,  of  Columbia.  In 
every  position,  he  discharged  his  duty  with  conspicuous  ability, 
and  with  a  thoroughness  of  which  he  alone  seemed  to  be  capa- 
ble. 

I  cannot  conceive  how  Dr.  Woodrow  could  have  made  a  per- 
sonal enemy.    His  courtesy  to  even  the  most  debased  was 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


151 


uniform.  He  did  not  attack  the  positions  of  other  men,  save 
modestly,  calmly,  and  in  the  interests  of  truth  alone.  He  did 
not  question  the  sincerity  or  motives  of  other  men.  He  credited 
others  with  the  same  honesty  which  he  required  of  himself. 
Yet  I  am  aware  that  there  were  some  men  who  felt  as  though 
they  had  a  personal  grievance  against  Dr.  Woodrow.  This 
must  have  proceeded  from  a  very  common  weakness  of  human 
character,  that  men  are  apt  to  be  jealous  of  those  who  are 
superior  to  them,  and  it  is  very  easy  for  this  jealousy  to  grow 
into  a  feeling  of  hatred,  which  often  becomes  very  malignant. 
Towards  such  persons,  Dr.  Woodrow  felt  no  resentment.  He 
seemed  rather  to  pity  the  weakness.  Yet  some  of  the  enmities 
which  survived  the  great  controversy  were  nursed  in  the  bosom 
of  a  few  men  who  never  lost  opportunities  to  advertise  /their 
own  inferiority  by  bitter  and  silly  assaults  upon  Dr.  Woodrow. 

There  remains  one  other  fact  concerning  Dr.  Woodrow,  of 
which  I  shall  speak.  A  volume  might  be,  and  no  doubt  will  be, 
written  to  describe  it  in  all  its  details.  I  refer  to  the  great 
controversy  hereinbefore  hinted  at,  between  Dr.  Woodrow  and 
his  followers  on  the  one  hand,  and  certain  ministers  and  lay- 
men claiming  to  represent  the  Presbyterian  Church  on  the 
other  hand.  It  will  be  remembered  that  in  1860,  Dr.  Woodrow 
was  induced  to  accept  a  professorship  in  the  Columbia  Theo- 
logical Seminary,  wherein  should  be  taught  the  relation  of 
natural  science  to  revealed  religion.  In  his  Inaugural  Address, 
delivered  on  Nov.  22,  1861,  he  fully  and  fairly  disclosed  all  the 
views  which  he  subsequently  taught,  and  there  was  no  reason 
why  any  one  should  be  taken  by  surprise.  I  apprehend  that  the 
establishment  of  this  professorship  was  for  the  purpose  of  meet- 
ing a  feeling  that  there  is  in  some  way  antagonism  between  the 
truth  of  God  as  revealed  in  his  works  in  the  material  world, 
and  the  truth  of  God  as  expressed  in  his  word,  the  Holy  Bible. 
Where  there  is  a  seeming  conflict,  the  student  usually  adheres 
to  the  inferences  to  be  drawn  from  the  facts  of  natural  science. 
The  reason  is  this :  It  is  obvious  that  the  natural  world  has  not 
been  tampered  with  by  man,  but  is  fresh  from  the  hand  of  God  ; 
while  a  variety  of  translations,  and  controversy  as  to  what 
books  should  be  included  in  the  Bible,  and  still  wider  contro- 
versy as  to  what  those  parts  which  are  admittedly  genuine  are 


152 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


designed  to  teach,  all  leave  the  student  to  doubt  and  distrust. 
The  view  of  Dr.  Woodrow  was  simply  this :  The  truth  of  God 
expressed  in  his  Book  and  the  truth  of  God  expressed  in  his 
works,  cannot  conflict ;  all  truth  must  harmonise ;  where  (there 
is  a  seeming  conflict,  it  is  due  to  a  misunderstanding  of  what 
truth  one  or  the  other  of  these  modes  of  revelation  does  in  fact 
teach.  Further,  Dr.  Woodrow's  position  was  (that  the  Bible 
was  designed  to  teach  moral  and  spiritual  truth,  the  highest  of 
all  truth;  that  it  was  not  designed  to  teach  either  scientific  or 
historical  truths.  Hence,  he  maintained  that  the  Church  dare 
not  do  what  the  Bible  has  not  done,  namely,  undertake  to  teach 
scientific  facts.  He  maintained  that  the  realm  of  science  was 
free  territory ;  and  that  it  is  man's  duty  to  learn  all  he  can  of 
the  way  in  which  God  works  in  nature. 

On  the  other  hand,  certain  members  of  his  Church  took  the 
view  that  Dr.  Woodrow  was  tearing  down  and  destroying  views 
of  the  Bible  and  of  man  and  of  God,  which  had  been  accepted 
through  the  ages ;  and  by  a  subtle,  logical  fallacy  argued  that  if 
Dr.  Woodrow  succeeded  in  destroying  certain  views  of  Bible 
truth  which  men  had  long  entertained,  he  was  thereby  destroy- 
ing certain  Bible  truth  itself.  They  failed  to  distinguish 
between  man's  dogmas  and  plain  Bible  teaching.  The  West- 
minster catechism  was  set  up  as  the  very  truth  of  God  itself, 
and  the  construction  of  certain  expressions  in  that  catechism 
adopted  by  certain  members  of  the  Church,  was  maintained  as 
the  very  truth  of  God.  So  here  the  issue  was  joined,  and 
there  was  a  grave  conflict  between  the  views  entertained  by 
Dr.  Woodrow,  on  the  one  hand,  and  certain  members  of  his 
Church  on  the  other,  as  (to  the  historic  origin  of  man.  Upon 
this  issue  the  fight  was  waged. 

For  many  years  Dr.  Woodrow  was  the  central  figure  in  all 
theological  discussion  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church, 
and  through  it  all  he  passed  with  a  quiet  dignity  and  a  zeal  for 
truth  and  truth  alone,  which  marks  him  as  one  of  (the  world's 
heroes.  He  repeatedly  declared  that  he  was  working  solely 
for  the  proper  conception  of  Bible  truth  and  religious  teaching. 
He  argued  that  the  general  assaults  by  certain  theologians  upon 
the  physical  sciences,  and  upon  those  who  engaged  in  studying 
the  physical  sciences,  as  atheistic,  infidel,  materialistic,  were 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


153 


having  the  effect  of  driving  away  from  the  Church,  and  from 
the  Bible,  and  from  God,  thousands  of  earnest,  conscientious 
students.  It  was  too  plain  that  if  a  student  of  nature,  who 
knew  that  the  conclusions  which  his  branch  of  science  led  to 
were  true  and  morally  uplifting,  heard  a  minister  of  the  Gospel, 
who  supposedly  knew  what  the  Bible  teaches,  declare  that  the 
conclusions  of  science  are  antagonistic  to  the  teaching  of  the 
Bible,  such  student  would  at  once  assume  that  there  is  an  essen- 
tial conflict,  and  knowing  the  truth  of  science  would  reject  the 
Bible  as  false.  On  the  other  hand,  such  teaching  had  a  tendency 
to  repress  a  praiseworthy  desire  for  knowledge  of  the  works  of 
God.  Having  been  taught  that  science  is  antagonistic  to  the 
Bible,  and  believing  the  Bible  ito  be  true,  such  Christians  would 
not  dare  to  investigate  natural  science.  Thus  their  vision 
would  be  circumscribed.  And  though  a  man  may  read  that 
"the  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God,  and  the  earth  showeth 
his  handywork,"  and  that  "all  things  in  heaven  and  in  earth  do 
praise  him,,,  yet  such  earnest  Christian  dare  not  enter  into  a 
systematic  study  of  the  heavens  above,  or  of  the  earth  beneath, 
or  of  the  waters  under  the  earth,  lest  he  should  encourage  that 
which  is  antagonistic  to  the  Bible,  and  might  himself  be  led  to 
entertain  infidel  and  atheistic  views. 

Dr.  Woodrow  early  and  clearly  discerned  the  issues  in  that 
contest.  He  knew  that  the  teachings  of  science  are  true,  he 
knew  that  these  do  not  contradict  the  Bible,  he  knew  that  the 
Bible  is  true ;  he  knew  that  men  have  still  much  to  learn  of  the 
meaning  of  God's  word  and  of  his  works.  Hence,  he  was 
unwilling  that  the  great  Church  of  the  God  of  truth  should 
assume  an  attitude  of  hostility  toward  science  and  the  devotees 
of  science.  He  would  make  science  the  hand-maid  of  the 
Church,  he  would  make  God's  world  visible  to  the  human  eye 
portray  and  illustrate  principles  of  spiritual  truth  to  delight  the 
vision  of  the  soul. 

Hence  ait  the  peril  of  being  assailed  as  a  heretic,  knowing 
that  he  would  be  attacked  as  a  traitor  to  the  Church,  believing 
that  he  would  be  charged  with  being  an  atheist,  he  yet  threw 
himself  into  the  breach  to  expose  the  error  of  certain  sincere 
but  misled  churchmen.  He  was  exceedingly  modest  and  con- 
servative in  every  position  taken;  his  language  was  couched  in 


154 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


words  of  Christian  charity ;  and  the  burden  of  his  effort  was  to 
establish  truth.  Finally,  when  the  contest  culminated  in  a 
formal  charge  made  against  him  for  teaching  views  contrary  to 
the  established  doctrines  of  the  Church  and  of  the  Bible,  how 
eloquently  and  powerfully  did  he  plead  with  the  various  tri- 
bunals of  the  Church,,  not  for  the  acquittal  of  Dr.  Woodrow, 
one  mere  man,  but  for  a  principle  of  Christian  liberty  and 
human  freedom.  He  warned  the  Church  against  the  danger  of 
pronouncing  upon  a  question  of  science.  He  proclaimed  her 
sphere  to  be  limited  to  spiritual  and  moral  truths.  He  appealed 
to  history  to  prove  the  unwisdom  of  the  effort  being  made  by 
the  charge,  and  showed  how  the  prosecution  against  him  for 
views  of  pure  science  was  identical  with  the  prosecution  of  the 
charge  of  Rome  against  Galileo,  for  maintaining  (the  rotundity 
and  the  revolution  of  the  earth.  A  church  court  condemned 
Galileo  as  a  heretic,  as  a  teacher  of  false  science,  because  he 
taught  what  is  now  the  first  fact  of  geography  taught  every 
child  in  every  civilised  country.  So,  Dr.  Woodrow  was  tried 
and  condemned  in  the  latter  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  for 
teaching  principles  of  biological  truth  which  are  to-day  taught 
in  every  college  and  high  school,  whether  supported  by  Church 
or  State,  in  the  United  States.  In  a  very  few  years  the  fallacy 
of  the  position  was  obvious,  and  Dr.  Woodrow  was  gladly 
accepted  into  full  fellowship  with  his  Church  in  all  her 
branches. 

I  must  pause  to  consider  the  tremendous  moral  import  of  the 
heroic  fight  which  Dr.  Woodrow  waged.  I  shudder  to  think 
what  would  have  been  the  consequences  to  his  Church  and  to  all 
Churches,  if  he  had  faltered  at  the  crucial  moment.  If  he  had 
acted  in  an  unseemly  manner,  if  he  had  not  been  inspired  with 
Christian  charity,  if  he  had  not  been  thoroughly  familiar  with 
both  Bible  and  scientific  teaching,  and  with  the  history  of  the 
Church  and  of  the  world,  the  ingenious  and  powerful  attacks 
made  upon  him  would  have  prevailed,  and  the  progress  of 
Christian  thought  and  development  might  have  been  retarded 
hundreds  of  years.  Let  it  be  understood  that  those  who  assailed 
Dr.  Woodrow  were  equally  sincere  Christians  with  himself ; 
but  their  view  was  narrow  and  one-sided ;  he  saw  both  sides  of 
the  shield,  and  knew  the  whole  truth,  and  dared  to  defend  it, 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


155 


and  as  a  token  of  his  zeal,  placed  himself  upon  its  altar.  And 
through  it  all  he  passed  and  came  out  as  serene  and  undis- 
turbed in  mind  and  spirit,  as  if  he  had  been  receiving  the 
uninterrupted  applause  of  all  men.  I  believe  no  bitter,  acri- 
monious memory  lingered,  no  unworthy  passion  swayed  his 
breast,  but  there  he  stood — 

"Like  some  tall  cliff  that  lifts  its  awful  form, 

Swells  from  the  vale  and  midway  leaves  the  storm; 
Though  round  its  breast  the  rolling  clouds  may  spread, 
Eternal  sunshine  rests  upon  its  head." 

And  now  that  he  is  gone,  and  we  that  come  after  him  and 
enjoy  the  light  and  liberty  which  he  proclaimed  and  defended, 
who  love  the  Gospel  truth  which  he  loved — we  should  place  his 
name  in  the  catalogue  of  the  world's  heroes,  and  point  succeed- 
ing generations  to  him  as  one  who  loved  and  served  his  fellow- 
men. 


156 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Dr.  Woodrow  and  Sidney  Lanier. 


AN  ARTICLE  WRITTEN  FOR  THE  STATE  BY  DR.  GEORGE  ARMSTRONG 

WAUCHOPE. 

I  have  just  read  with  more  than  ordinary  interest  Dr.  Flinn's 
able  and  illuminating  sketch  of  the  life  of  the  lamented  Dr. 
Woodrow  in  to-day's  issue  of  The  State.  I  was  especially 
interested  in  that  part  in  which  he  speaks  of  Dr.  Woodrow's 
influence  upon  the  poet  Lanier.  Like  Gen.  Lee,  Dr.  Woodrow 
seems  to  have  impressed  the  force  of  his  virile  and  well-bal- 
anced character  upon  all  with  whom  he  came  in  contact.  While 
president  of  South  Carolina  College,  his  was  the  master  mind 
in  all  the  deliberations  of  the  faculty.  So  implicitly  indeed  did 
they  come  to  rely  upon  his  wise  judgment  of  men  and  things, 
that  even  after  the  lapse  of  many  years  it  is  not  an  unusual 
thing  to  hear  his  former  colleagues  quote  Dr.  Woodrow's  opin- 
ions on  analogous  cases.  Even  while  he  was  a  young  professor 
at  Oglethorpe  this  influence  made  itself  felt. 

Supplementary  to  what  Dr.  Flinn  has  so  beautifully  said,  I 
may  quote  a  letter  written  by  Dr.  Woodrow  to  Dr.  Edwin  Mims 
on  this  subject:  "When  Lanier  graduated  I  caused  him  to  be 
appointed  tutor  in  the  university,  so  that  I  became  better 
acquainted  with  him,  and  liked  him  better  and  better.  I  was 
professor  of  natural  science,  and  often  took  him  to  ramble  with 
me,  observing  and  studying  whatever  we  saw,  but  also  talking 
about  everything  either  of  us  cared  for.  About  the  same  time 
I  was  licensed  to  preach,  and  spent  my  Saturdays  and  Sundays 
in  preaching  to  feeble  churches  and  in  school  houses,  court 
houses,  and  private  houses,  within  forty  or  more  miles  of  the 
college,  trying  to  make  my  Sunday  night  services  come  within 
twenty-five  miles  of  home,  so  that  I  could  drive  to  the  college 
in  time  for  my  Monday  morning  sunrise  lecture.  Every  now 
and  then  I  would  invite  Lanier  to  go  with  me.  During  such 
drives  we  were  constantly  engaged  without  interruption  in  our 
conversation.  In  these  ways,  and  in  listening  frequently  to  his 
marvellous  flute-playing,  we  were  much  together.  We  were 
both  young  and  fond  of  study."    (Life  of  Lanier,  pp.  29-30.) 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


157 


Oglethorpe  was  a  small  and  obscure  college,  but  when  Lanier 
came  to  look  back  upon  the  life-long  influences  which  he  there 
received,  he  said  that  he  "owed  to  Dr.  Woodrow  the  strongest 
and  most  valuable  stimulus  of  his  early  life."  This  stimulus 
is  very  evident  in  the  poet's  wonderful  nature-poems,  which  are 
marked  by  scientific  accuracy  and  a  profound  reverence  for 
scientific  -truth.  I  know  of  no  more  beautiful  instance  of  the 
helpful  relation  of  teacher  and  student. 

Lanier  was  no  less  influenced  by  Dr.  Woodrow  in  his  attitude 
to  the  controversy  between  science  and  religion.  To  quote 
again  from  Dr.  Mims's  Life:  "The  piety  of  such  men  (Tal- 
mage  and  Lane)  confirmed  in  Lanier  a  natural  religious  fervor. 
But  the  man  who  was  destined  to  have  a  really  formative  influ- 
ence over  him  was  James  Woodrow,  of  the  department  of 
science.  A  native  of  England  and  during  his  younger  days  a 
citizen  of  Ohio,  he  had  studied  at  Lawrence  Scientific  school 
under  Agassiz,  and  had  just  returned  from  two  years'  study  in 
Germany  when  Lanier  came  under  his  influence  *  *  *  *  Dr. 
Woodrow  maintained  that  the  science  of  theology,  as  a  science, 
is  equally  human  and  uninspired  with  the  science  of  geology. 
*  *  *  q^is  p0jnt  0f  vieWj  maintained  even  to  the  point  of 
accepting  the  theory  of  evolution,  led  eventually  to  his  trial  and 
condemnation  by  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church.  Through- 
out the  whole  controversy  he  maintained  a  calm  and  moderate 
temper  and  never  abated  in  the  least  his  acceptance  of  the 
fundamental  ideas  of  the  Christian  religion." 

Such  a  man,  coming  into  the  life  of  Lanier  at  a  formative 
period,  influenced  him  profoundly.  He  set  his  mind  going  in 
the  direction  which  he  afterwards  followed  with  great  zest,  the 
value  of  science  in  modern  life  and  its  relation  to  poetry  and 
religion.  He  also  revealed  to  him  the  meaning  of  genuine 
scholarship. 

Dr.  Wauchope  adds  to  the  above: 

"I  esteem  it  a  high  privilege  to  have  known  Dr.  WToodrow, 
who  impressed  me,  one  of  his  younger  friends  and  admirers,  as 
the  finest  type  of  the  American  scholar,  a  man  who  succeeded 
in  the  difficult  task  of  combining  business  and  culture.  He  was 
one  of  the  few  really  great  men  I  have  ever  known.    His  im- 


158 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


press  upon  the  University  of  South  Carolina  may  safely  be 
pronounced  indelible,  and  as  the  years  roll  by,  his  name  will  be 
enrolled  in  its  history  along  with  those  of  its  ablest  presidents — 
Maxcy,  Preston,  and  Thornwell.  His  wise  maxims  and 
decisions  in  critical  cases  are  still  frequently  quoted  by  mem- 
bers of  the  Faculty  who  were  his  colleagues. " 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


159 


A  Student's  Impressions. 


BY  PROE.  A.  C.  MOORE. 

Dr.  Woodrow  made  a  profound  impression  upon  me  while  a 
student  in  the  South  Carolina  College,  just  as  he  did  upon  every 
student  who  came  within  the  circle  of  his  influence.  Even 
those  who  never  came  directly  under  his  instruction  were 
impressed  by  his  quiet  dignity  and  venerable  presence  upon  the 
campus.  The  sphere  of  his  influence  as  a  teacher  was  not 
confined  to  the  class-room,  nor  to  the  college  walls.  Through 
his  paper  he  reached  a  large  circle  of  readers.  The  Southern 
Presbyterian  was  a  regular  and  welcome  visitor  at  my  father's 
home,  and  one  of  my  earliest  recollections  is  connected  with 
spreading  out  its  broad  pages  upon  the  floor  and  having  my 
mother  tell  me  the  names  of  the  large  letters  at  the  top  of  the 
first  page.  I  was  also  fond  of  having  her  read  to  me  the  stories 
which  were  published  in  the  children's  column.  Thus  it  hap- 
pened that  I  owe  to  Dr.  Woodrow  something  of  my  earliest 
education ;  and  later  it  was  he  who  made  the  final  criticisms 
upon  my  graduating  thesis.  Between  the  learning  of  the  alpha- 
bet from  the  Southern  Presbyterian  and  the  submission  of  my 
graduating  essay,  I  spent  many  delightful  and  profitable  hours 
under  Dr.  Woodrow's  instruction. 

There  are  no  keener  critics  of  human  nature  than  college 
students.  Individuals  may  make  mistakes  in  judging  the  char- 
acter of  their  instructors,  but  the  crystallised  judgment  of 
successive  classes  is  seldom  wrong.  Judged  by  this  student 
standard.  Dr.  Woodrow  had  no  equal.  He  was  a  man  of  such 
well-rounded  character,  so  just  and  candid  in  his  treatment  of 
his  students,  that  they  never  spoke  of  him  except  in  terms  of 
the  utmost  respect.  The  breadth  and  accuracy  of  his  scholar- 
ship won  their  admiration :  yet  with  all  his  profound  learning 
he  was  distinguished  for  his  modesty,  and  was  never  known  to 
impose  upon  the  credulity  of  his  students.  He  did  not  profess 
to  know  everything,  but  there  were  few  subjects  upon  which 
he  was  not  well  informed.  His  candor  in  saying.  "I  do  not 
know,"  in  reply  to  questions  upon  which  he  had  no  accurate 


160 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


knowledge  gave  his  students  great  confidence  in  him.  Accu- 
racy of  knowledge  and  absolute  fidelity  to  the  (truth  were  the 
cardinal  principles  of  his  teaching. 

No  student  ever  thought  of  misbehaving  in  Dr.  Woodrow's 
class-room.  He  presided  with  such  dignity  and  inspired  such 
respect,  that  students  observed  the  same  decorum  in  his  class- 
room that  they  would  have  done  in  his  parlor.  His  situdents 
were  treated  with  the  utmost  respect  and  consideration.  He 
was  always  a  gentleman  in  the  etymological  sense  of  that  word, 
and  so  always  treated  his  students.  There  was  no  bullying  in 
his  class-room,  but  he  was  never  imposed  upon.  He  was  quick 
to  detect  and  expose  shams,  but  never  in  such  a  way  as  unduly 
to  injure  the  feelings  of  students  or  to  offend  a  keen  sense  of 
propriety. 

Out  of  the  class-room  Dr.  Woodrow  was  cordial  and  sympa- 
thetic, manifesting  to  an  unusual  degree  a  personal  interest  in 
the  individual  student.  No  student  ever  came  out  from  a 
private  interview  with  him  without  feeling  that  he  was  just  and 
at  the  same  time  sympathetic. 

It  was  always  a  wonder  to  the  students  how  he  accomplished 
so  much.  Besides  his  professorship  in  (the  College,  he  held  a 
chair  in  the  Theological  Seminary,  edited  and  published  the 
Southern  Presbyterian  and  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Review, 
and  attended  to  large  business  interests;  and  yet  he  never 
seemed  in  a  hurry.  He  knew  how  to  systematise  his  time,  and 
always  worked  to  a  definite  purpose. 

It  was  during  my  sophomore  year  that  he  delivered  his 
famous  Address  before  the  directors  of  the  Theological  Semi- 
nary, defining  his  position  on  the  doctrine  of  evolution.  For 
the  next  few  years  he  was  the  centre  of  one  of  the  greatest 
storms  that  have  ever  raged  in  the  modern  Church.  Through- 
out it  all  he  maintained  the  greatest  composure,  and  came  out 
with  unimpaired  dignity  and  with  new  prestige.  It  was  during 
these  trying  years  that  he  appeared  at  his  best.  Those  who 
met  him  in  the  performance  of  his  daily  duties  would  never 
have  suspected  that  he  was  in  the  midst  of  a  bitter  controversy, 
so  calm  and  serene  was  his  demeanor. 

His  sublime  faith  in  the  inerrancy  of  the  sacred  Scriptures 
made  a  profound  impression  upon  his  students,  who  honored 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


161 


him  as  much  for  the  sincerity  of  his  religious  convictions  as 
they  admired  him  for  his  scientific  knowledge.  His  teaching 
and  example  at  this  time  of  unrest  did  much  to  add  stability  to 
the  religious  convictions  of  the  students  of  the  College. 

Dr.  Woodrow  was  by  temperament  a  scholar  and  would  have 
found  pleasure  in  seclusion  with  his  books,  but  he  did  not  yield 
himself  to  self-indulgence.  He  always  maintained  an  active 
interest  in  men  and  affairs,  and  shirked  none  of  the  duties 
which  devolve  upon  a  citizen.  When  the  history  of  the  College 
is  written,  Dr.  Woodrow's  name  will  be  recorded  as  one  of  the 
greatest  connected  with  the  institution. 


11— w 


162 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


A  Newspaper  Man's  Retrospect. 


BY  MR.  AUGUST  KOHN. 

It  has  been  a  long  time  since  I  entered  the  South  Carolina  Col- 
lege, but  my  recollection  of  Dr.  James  Woodrow  is  very  distinct. 
A  boy  entering  college  is  very  timid  and  backward.  How  well 
do  I  remember  the  kindly  interest,  the  goodness,  and  the 
friendliness  of  Dr.  Woodrow!  Some  men  have  a  manner, 
maybe  it  is  a  magnetism,  that  attracts  young  men,  and  it  was 
not  long  before  I  would  remain  after  classes  to  have  a  friendly 
chat  with  him.  It  was  not  usual  for  students  to  do  this,  or  for 
professors  to  encourage  the  idea;  but  Dr.  Woodrow  always 
seemed  pleased  to  have  a  student  talk  with  him,  whether  it  be 
on  the  immediate  lesson  of  the  day  or  something  entirely  for- 
eign. I  remember  on  one  of  these  after-lecture-hour  chats 
how  enthusiastically  Dr.  Woodrow  spoke  of  my  religion,  and 
how  he  impressed  upon  me  the  proud  history  of  Judaism. 

Some  men  have  a  way  of  emphasising  the  big  "I ;"  but  the 
more  I  knew  of  Dr.  Woodrow  the  more  his  vast  knowledge 
grew  upon  me,  the  more  I  appreciated  how  great  a  sweep  his 
education  embraced,  and  at  the  same  time  the  more  was  I 
impressed  with  his  desire  to  minimise  himself  and  his  superior 
ability.  I  have  often  marvelled  why  it  was  that  a  man  of  such 
wonderful  talents  and  broad  education  should  have  kept  himself 
so  much  in  retirement ;  and  not  let  people  know  and  see  more 
of  him.*  I  wonder  whether  it  was  because  of  his  modesty,  his 
aversion  to  publicity,  or  fear  of  being  misunderstood.  What- 
ever may  have  been  the  cause,  I  have  always  regretted  that  he 
did  not  let  people  know  more  of  him,  and  leave  the  world  more 
of  his  masterly  work,  whether  it  be  in  books  or  printed  lectures ; 
and  I  am  truly  glad  that  there  is  a  likelihood  of  a  memorial 
volume  being  published  that  will  in  part  record  his  virtues  and 
ability;  and  my  hope  is  that  some  of  his  literary  work  will  be 
incorporated  in  this  or  other  volumes. 

*The  answer  to  Mr.  Kohn's  question  may  be  found  in  Dr.  Daniel's 
article. — Editor. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


163 


After  my  graduation  in  1889  it  was  my  good  fortune  to  meet 
Dr.  Woodrow  frequently  relative  to  business  and  college  mat- 
ters. 

As  President  of  the  South  Carolina  College  he  had  the 
unbounded  confidence  of  the  student  body,  as  well  as  their  love 
and  affection.  The  College  in  those  days  did  not  receive  the 
financial  support  of  the  State  to  the  extent  that  it  now  enjoys  ; 
but  Dr.  Woodrow  never  doubted  for  an  instant  that  the  South 
Carolina  College  would  have  the  liberal  support  of  the  General 
Assembly,  and  that  eventually  it  would  be  crowded  to  its 
capacity.  It  was  his  idea  that  there  was  but  one  way  to  suc- 
ceed, and  that  was  by  continuing  to  do  good  work  and  "keeping 
everlastingly  at  it."  At  one  time  as  secretary  of  the  Alumni 
Association  I  talked  with  him  about  the  College  sending  out 
students  to  "drum  up"  students.  Other  colleges  were  doing 
so.  Dr.  Woodrow  promptly  took  the  position  that  this  was  a 
species  of  cheap  and  undignified  advertising,  and  that  the  Col- 
lege would  grow  in  popularity  and  public  esteem  by  its  excellent 
work ;  and  he  absolutely  refused  to  allow  this  new-fangled  idea 
of  advertising  to  be  carried  out  in  the  name  of  the  College. 

I  remember  when  a  mere  lad  to  have  been  impressed  with 
the  many  professional  and  literary  degrees  that  Dr.  Woodrow 
was  entitled  to  use  after  his  name ;  and  later  on  when  thrown  in 
contact  with  him  in  the  business  world,  it  seemed  odd  that  he,  a 
banker,  was  entitled  to  any  degree  or  titles.  But  he  perhaps 
took  more  pride  in  his  success  as  a  banker  than  he  did  in  his 
honorary  degrees.  His  success  as  a  banker  was  simply  the 
natural  result  of  his  wonderful  training,  his  high  regard  for  the 
truth,  and  his  capacity  to  judge  men. 

I  have  an  autograph  album, — they  were  quite  popular  twenty 
years  ago.  In  this  book  are  the  autographs  of  my  professors 
and  class-mates  at  the  South  Carolina  College,  and  in  that  little 
book  there  is  no  name  that  I  look  upon  with  more  tender 
memories  or  more  thorough  appreciation  than  I  do  that  of — 
James  Woodrow. 

In  reporting  the  Centennial  exercises  of  South  Carolina  Col- 
lege for  the  News  and  Courier,  Jan.,  1905,  Air.  Kohn  said: 


164 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


The  feature  of  the  morning's  session  was  the  ovation  ten- 
dered Dr.  James  Woodrow,  formerly  president,  and  for  twenty- 
years  professor  in  South  Carolina  College.  When  he  arose  to 
speak  there  was  a  storm  of  applause  lasting  many  minutes.  On 
account  of  age  and  feeble  health  Dr.  Woodrow  was  unable  to 
stand  alone  and  was  supported  on  the  arm  of  President  Sloan. 
He  made  a  response  to  the  greeting  which  was  full  of  feeling. 

One  of  the  most  touching  and  interesting  features  of  the 
occasion  was  when  the  venerable  former  president  of  the  Col- 
lege, Dr.  James  Woodrow,  was  led  to  the  front  by  President 
Sloan,  who  held  him  by  the  arm.  He  was  greeted  with  loud 
applause  and  by  all  rising  from  their  seats. 

In  his  half-whispered  accents,  so  dear  to  his  former  students, 
Dr.  Woodrow  expressed  his  intense  gratification  at  being  able 
to  be  present,  and  spoke  in  the  highest  terms  in  praise  of  Presi- 
dent Sloan  as  an  administrator. 

His  brief  words  of  greeting  which  so  thrilled  the  audience 
were  as  follows : 

"I  regret,  very  greatly  regret,  that  I  cannot  attempt  to  answer 
in  a  proper  and  becoming  way  your  invitation,  for  want  of 
physical  strength.  I  am  totally  unable  to  attempt  a  suitable 
response.  But  I  could  not  resist  the  temptation,  the  strong 
desire,  once  more  to  meet  face  to  face  yourself  and  my  other 
colleagues  of  former  days  and  the  numbers  of  pupils  whom  I 
strove  to  lead  to  higher  and  higher  planes  of  light. 

"I  wish  also  to  say  publicly  what  I  have  so  often  and  so  long 
felt,  that  my  gratification  is  intense  that  I  can  at  the  end  of  the 
first  century  of  South  Carolina  College  and  the  beginning  of  the 
second  find  its  destinies  presided  over  by  so  worthy  a  president 
as  yourself.    (Loud  applause.) 

"I  desire  also  to  express  the  most  earnest  hope  that,  glorious 
as  the  past  has  been,  the  present  is  just  the  beginning  of  the 
good  times  coming,  the  glorious  times  for  which  we  have  so 
long  looked  and  labored."    (Great  applause.)  *  *  * 

The  closing  response  was  the  most  remarkable  of  all.  It 
was  by  former  President  James  Woodrow,  who  is  held  in  such 
high  esteem,  not  only  by  his  former  students,  but  by  the  people 
of  all  Carolina. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


165 


The  State's  reporter  said : 

While  the  speeches  on  this  occasion  were  full  of  thought  and 
feeling,  there  was  one  which  produced  profoundest  effect  above 
all  others,  a  simple  talk,  but  eloquent  in  feeling.  When  the 
venerable  James  Woodrow,  formerly  president  of  the  College, 
was  introduced  by  President  Sloan,  he  was  greeted  with  thun- 
derous applause.  His  voice,  weak  at  first,  grew  stronger  as 
his  emotion  increased,  and  he  expressed  with  fervor  his  devout 
hope  for  the  greater  prosperity  of  the  College. 


166 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


The  Opinion  of  a  Scientist. 


BY  DR.  D.  S.  MARTIN. 

My  first  acquaintance  with  Dr.  Woodrow  was  formed  at  the 
meetings  of  the  American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of 
Science,  about  the  year  1887.  I  had  long  known  him  by  repu- 
tation, and  felt  the  profoundest  interest  and  respect  for  him, 
in  connexion  with  his  celebrated  and  mournful  conflict  with  the 
Church,  when  he  had  been  assailed  in  the  name  of  theology, 
and  had  so  grandly  defended  his  position  as  a  Christian  believer 
who  was  also  abreast  of  scientific  thought.  My  own  interest 
in  such  lines  of  study  had  been  so  great,  and  my  sympathy  with 
his  views  was  so  strong,  that  I  regarded  Dr.  Woodrow  as  a 
hero  and  almost  a  martyr  in  the  cause  of  truth,  and  was 
intensely  gratified  to  form  his  acquaintance.  His  perfect  sim- 
plicity of  manner,  and  his  dignified  cordiality,  impressed  and 
attracted  me  greatly,  and  I  felt  it  both  an  honor  and  a  privilege 
to  meet  him ;  but  it  was  not  until  some  years  later  that  I  really 
learned  to  know  him. 

In  1898  I  came  to  Columbia  as  professor  of  geology  in  the 
College  for  Women.  I  arrived  as  an  entire  stranger  to  the  city 
and  the  region ;  and  though  I  was  welcomed  by  President  Pell 
and  the  faculty,  yet  so  far  as  previous  acquaintance  was  con- 
cerned, Dr.  Woodrow  was  the  only  resident  of  Columbia  that  I 
had  ever  met  or  known.  Almost  immediately,  therefore,  I 
sought  him  out  at  his  home ;  and  then  began  the  later  and  closer 
acquaintance  which  I  enjoyed  from  season  to  season  for  the 
remaining  years  of  his  life. 

From  the  first,  and  to  the  last,  I  found  him  ever  the  same,  in 
a  singularly  charming  combination  of  simplicity,  dignity.,  and 
graciousness.  His  noble  aspect  always  impressed  me,  and  his 
cordial  welcome  was  ever  a  delight.  I  had  for  him  a  feeling  of 
deep  reverence ;  but  his  manner  and  behavior  made  me  feel  at 
home  in  his  presence,  as  a  friend  and  a  comrade.  I  called  upon 
him  often, — as  often  as  I  felt  authorised  to  do,  upon  one  so 
much  older  and  so  much  wiser  than  myself;  but  his  warmth  of 
greeting  was  unfailing,  and  his  conversation  was  so  inspiring 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


167 


and  so  remarkable,  that  I  always  regretted  that  I  could  not 
enjoy  it  more  frequently  and  retain  it  more  fully  in  memory. 

It  is  impossible  for  me  to  convey  in  a  brief  outline,  the 
impression  made  upon  me  by  Dr.  Woodrow.  The  Christian 
believer  who  is  also  a  scientist  is  a  man  who  has  largely  to 
stand  alone,  and  who  feels  that  loneliness  intensely.  He  loves 
his  scientific  studies  and  his  scientific  friends;  but  they  are  of 
this  world,  associated  with  only  one  great  phase  of  his  thought 
and  being;  and  it  is  an  abiding  sorrow  to  him  that  so  few  of 
those  friends  can  sympathise  with  the  other  great  phase  of  his 
life  and  thought,  that  relating  to  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the 
eternal  existence.  They  generally  fail  to  respond  to  these 
things  altogether,  too  often  regarding  them  with  unbelief  or 
even  with  contempt ;  and  looking  upon  him  as  less  of  a  scientist 
because  of  his  larger  and  higher  range  of  thought.  On  the 
other  hand,  he  loves  the  Gospel  and  holds  it  precious  and 
glorious  beyond  all  that  the  present  world  can  yield;  and  he 
loves  his  Christian  brethren  with  an  affection  that  reaches 
onward  into  an  endless  future, — "for  the  truth's  sake  which 
dwelleth  in  us,  and  shall  be  with  us  forever!'  But,  alas,  too 
often  again,  they  have  no  sympathy  with  his  intellectual  life, 
and  frequently  look  upon  him  with  doubt,  or  even  with  opposi- 
tion, because  of  his  scientific  views.  Hence,  he  is  often  made 
to  feel  himself  utterly  alone,  as  one  more  or  less  distrusted  by 
both  classes  of  his  dearest  friends,  whom  he  would  fain  bring 
together  in  mutual  understanding  and  confidence.  Whenever, 
therefore,  he  meets  another  of  like  belief  and  feeling,  who  can 
sympathise  in  both  the  great  phases  of  his  life  and  thought, 
there  is  an  intense  and  two-fold  interest  and  delight  awakened 
in  the  intercourse  of  two  such  minds. 

Dr.  Woodrow's  great  desire  and  endeavor  had  been  to  serve 
as  a  guide,  a  friend,  a  peacemaker,  between  the  two  mighty 
hosts  of  science  and  theology.  His  position  in  the  Seminary 
gave  him  a  splendid  opportunity  for  this  work,  and  he  prized 
it  as  such,  to  train  the  young  ministry  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  to  stand  firm  in  the  Gospel  and  yet  to  understand  the 
great  scientific  development  of  this  age,  so  as  to  cooperate  with 
it  fearlessly  and  freely.  Alas,  that  he  was  so  sadly  thrown  out 
of  that  position  and  deprived  of  that  priceless  opportunity! 


168 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


He  rarely  referred  to  this  greatest  sorrow  and  disappointment 
of  his  life ;  but  it  was  easy  to  see  how  he  loved  and  prized  the 
work  that  had  been  taken  from  him, — a  work  which  so  few 
could  properly  appreciate  and  no  one  since  has  been  found  to 
take  up  in  his  place. 

It  was  not  my  purpose,  however,  to  dwell  upon  this  painful 
subject,  which  Dr.  Woodrow  himself  preferred  to  pass  over  in 
Christian  charity  and  silence.  It  is  a  joy  to  know,  that  in  the 
later  years,  he  was  better  appreciated  and  understood  by  those 
who  had  before  been  his  opponents,  and  was  welcomed  and 
honored  in  the  circles  where  he  had  formerly  been  distrusted 
and  repelled.  But  the  wrong  and  the  mistake  could  never  be 
undone,  nor  the  great  loss  to  the  Seminary  and  the  Church  ever 
be  remedied  or  restored. 

In  my  own  intercourse  with  Dr.  Woodrow,  I  was  especially 
impressed  by  the  wealth  of  interest  in  his  conversation.  He 
had  had  an  experience  truly  remarkable  in  his  varied  associa- 
tion with  eminent  European  scientists,  first  as  a  student  with 
preceptors  and  later  as  a  professor  and  colaborer.  His  enthu- 
siastic and  affectionate  reminiscences  of  personal  intercourse 
with  men  who  to  myself,  and  others  of  the  present  day,  are 
known  only  as  eminent  names  in  science,  were  rich  in  interest 
and  attractiveness.  In  like  manner,  his  observations  and 
studies  in  geological  and  kindred  subjects,  wherever  he  had 
travelled,  as  he  had  done  widely  in  Europe,  were  a  delightful 
source  of  inspiration  and  instruction.  He  blended  in  a  manner 
that  I  have  known  in  no  other  man,  the  scientific  observer  with 
the  cultured  scholar ;  and  the  combination  was  as  delightful  as 
it  is  rare.  His  geological  notes  upon  scenes  and  regions  in 
Germany  and  Italy  that  are  famous  in  literature  or  in  classical 
history,  though  given  only  in  fragments  according  as  some  little 
point  would  come  up  in  conversation,  made  an  impression  that 
can  never  be  forgotten.  After  such  an  interview,  I  would 
endeavor  to  make  notes  of  some  of  these  charming  and  striking 
reminiscences,  and  often  felt  that  Dr.  Woodrow  ought  to  place 
them  upon  record.  He  could  have  made  a  volume  of  unique 
interest,  if  he  had  done  so.  Very  few  American  scientists 
have  had  such  a  knowledge  of  the  geology  of  Europe  as  Dr. 
Woodrow ;  and  when  this  was  united  with  classical  and  literary 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


169 


appreciation,  the  result  was  exceedingly  remarkable.  Above 
all,  it  was  elevated  and  inspired  by  earnest  Christian  belief, 
never  obtruded,  but  ever  ready  to  avow  itself. 

How  can  such  a  man  be  spared  from  this  world?  He  pos- 
sessed such  a  rare  and  beautiful  combination  of  gifts,  experi- 
ences, and  aims,  that  it  seems  as  though  we  could  not  let  him 
go.  But  God  knows  best,  and  we  can  but  acquiesce,  even 
though  we  cannot  understand. 


170 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Dr.  Woodrow  as  a  Business  Man. 


BY  MR.  W.  A.  CLARK. 

The  subject  of  this  memoir  was  more  distinguished  in  the 
scientific  and  literary  world,  and  was,  therefore,  better  known 
as  a  scientist,  teacher,  and  theologian.  In  that  sphere  much 
has  been  written  of  his  eminent  attainment,  distinguished 
ability,  and  well-earned  reputation.  While  I  too,  with  others, 
enjoyed  the  privilege  of  an  association  with  him  in  these 
spheres  of  his  activity,  it  is  my  purpose  here  to  speak  of  another 
talent  with  which  he  was  eminently  endowed.  I  refer  to  his 
marked  executive  ability  and  his  wonderful  success  on  the 
business  side  of  life. 

I  first  became  acquainted  with  Dr.  Woodrow  in  1871,  when 
as  a  young  lawyer  I  was  admitted  to  the  bar  at  Columbia.  I 
was  then  brought  in  contact  with  him  as  the  proprietor  of  the 
Presbyterian  Publishing  House  in  the  preparation  of  my  briefs 
and  other  legal  documents  for  use  in  our  courts.  This  House 
had  already  gained  a  reputation  throughout  the  State  for  expe- 
dition and  accuracy  in  the  preparation  of  legal  documents,  and 
therefore  enjoyed  a  large  patronage  from  all  parts  of  the  State. 
After  this  introduction  I  at  once  became  impressed  with  the 
wide  range  of  his  knowledge  in  matters  of  purely  a  business 
character.  I  had  many  years  before  known  him  as  teacher 
and  theologian  through  the  columns  of  the  Southern  Presby- 
terian and  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Review,  of  which  he  was 
the  editor,  proprietor,  and  publisher.  After  this  as  a  member 
of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Theological  Seminary,  in 
which  he  was  a  professor,  and  still  later  as  a  trustee  of  the 
South  Carolina  College,  of  which  he  was  President,  I  became 
more  intimately  acquainted  with  him  in  the  entire  range  of  his 
varied  attainments. 

Still  later,  when  from  the  force  of  circumstances  he  was 
constrained  to  give  his  attention  to  secular  affairs,  I  was 
brought  in  more  intimate  touch  with  him  upon  the  business  side 
of  life.    This  relation  continued  until  the  time  of  his  death. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


171 


Brought  thus  intimately  in  touch  with  him.  through  a  series 
of  many  years,  I  learned  to  know  and  appreciate  the  wonderful 
range  of  his  eminent  and  varied  ability. 

For  many  years  he  had  been  recognised  in  the  scientific  and 
literary  world  as  among  the  most  distinguished ;  and  in  the 
wonderful  range  and  variety  of  his  knowledge  he  was  known  to 
have  but  few  equals.  Added  now  to  his  learning  and  scientific 
attainments,  his  marked  familiarity  with  ordinary  business 
affairs,  and  his  ability  to  deal  successfully  with  them,  stamped 
him  at  once  as  equally  great  in  this  other  and  more  practical 
department  of  life.  It  was  remarkable  indeed  that  one  who 
had  so  studiously  and  laboriously  devoted  himself  to  the  realm 
of  science  and  letters  could,  when  the  emergency  arose,  display 
such  familiarity  with  the  more  ordinary  affairs  of  every-day 
life. 

It  is,  as  I  have  already  stated,  the  purpose  of  this  memoir  to 
deal  more  particularly  with  his  executive  ability,  and  that  too 
upon  the  business  side  of  life. 

Until  1862  he  had  devoted  his  entire  time  to  letters  and 
scientific  investigation.  The  emergencies  of  the  war,  however, 
required  that  he  should  put  the  knowledge  thus  attained  to 
practical  use.  He,  therefore,  entered  the  service  of  the  Con- 
federate Government,  and  was  at  once  put  in  charge  of  the 
chemical  department  for  the  manufacture  of  medicine  for  the 
government.  In  this  important  and  trying  position  he  at  once 
displayed  that  wonderful  executive  ability  of  which  we  are 
now  speaking,  and  to  his  efforts  were  largely  due  that  relief 
without  which  the  Confederate  Government  would  have  been 
sorely  tried. 

The  war  ended,  his  career  had  to  be  largely  changed,  and 
again  we  witness  that  wonderful  ability  to  adapt  himself  to  any 
emergency.  Until  then  he  had  been  teacher.  Now  the  institu- 
tions of  learning  were  all  closed.  The  Seminary  at  Columbia,  to 
which  he  had  been  but  a  few  years  before  called  as  professor 
in  a  new  and  very  important  chair,  was  closed  during  the  war; 
most  of  its  invested  funds,  with  which  it  was  endowed,  had 
been  lost  by  the  result  of  the  war,  and  it  then  seemed  a  matter 
of  grave  doubt  whether  it  would  ever  again  open ;  at  least  the 
prospect  seemed  long  deferred.    Under  these  circumstances  he 


172 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


found  himself  called  upon  to  look  to  some  other  source  to  meet 
the  daily  wants  of  life.  His  devotion  to  his  Church  at  once 
suggested  the  importance  of  affording  her  people  the  necessary 
sacred  literature,  and  he,  therefore,  decided  to  resume  the 
publication  of  the  Church  papers;  and  to  this  end,  with  little 
or  no  means  of  his  own,  and  without  help  from  others,  and 
with  little  or  no  knowledge  of  the  routine  of  a  printing  office, 
he  established  the  Presbyterian  Printing  House.  The  Southern 
Presbyterian,  the  leading  weekly  religious  journal  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  the  South,  was  founded  near  Milledgeville, 
Ga.,  by  Dr.  Washington  Baird,  who  was  its  first  editor.  It 
was  afterwards  removed  to  Charleston,  S.  C,  where  the  Rev. 
J.  L.  Kirkpatrick  and  Mr.  Lanneau  were  the  editors.  About 
1861  it  was  sold  to  Dr.  J.  B.  Adger  and  others,  and  moved  to 
Columbia,  S.  C,  with  Dr.  Abner  Porter  as  editor.  Shortly 
before  the  close  of  the  war,  the  paper  was  moved  to  Augusta, 
Ga.  At  the  close  of  the  war  Dr.  Adger  and  his  fellow-proprie- 
tors decided  to  discontinue  the  publication  of  the  paper, 
deeming  it  a  useless  undertaking  in  the  ruined  condition  of  the 
country  and  of  the  Church.  Thereupon  Dr.  Woodrow,  recog- 
nising what  an  invaluable  aid  it  would  be  in  holding  together 
the  remnants  of  the  Church  and  in  restoring  her  to  her  former 
state  of  usefulness,  bought  the  Southern  Presbyterian  in  1865, 
becoming  the  sole  proprietor  and  editor,  removed  it  to  Colum- 
bia, and  continued  to  publish  it  until  1893.  Here  agafn  we  find 
him  levying  upon  that  talent  of  which  we  are  now  speaking,  to 
meet  this  great  emergency.  In  order  to  support  that  paper 
and  to  supply  it  to  the  members  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian 
Church,  regardless  of  the  subscription  list,  he  established  also 
a  job  printing  office  and  thus  contributed,  not  only  to  his  own 
support,  but  to  the  support  of  this  paper. 

Printing  was  to  him  a  novel  undertaking,  but  not  too  foreign 
to  be  made  subject  to  his  command,  and  before  long  he  so 
entirely  mastered  the  art  that  the  office  under  his  judicious, 
practical  management  gained  such  a  reputation  for  accuracy, 
expedition,  and  finish,  that  it  received  a  remunerative  patronage 
from  every  portion  of  the  State.  In  fact  the  office  had  gained 
such  a  reputation  that  it  became  a  common  saying  that  work 
would  be  returned  corrected  even  of  the  errors  with  which  it 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


173 


had  left  the  hands  of  the  writer.  Corrected  not  only  of  errors 
of  orthography,  but  even  of  reference  and  authority.  The 
legal  work  which  came  from  this  office  was  surpassed  by  none 
and  equalled  by  few. 

The  trying  ordeals  of  1876  again  presented  an  opportunity 
for  the  display  of  this  wonderful  talent.  Many  still  live  who 
suffered  the  bitter  experience  of  the  Reconstruction  Period  and 
who  took  part  in  the  memorable  campaign  of  1876.  While  the 
result  of  this  campaign  was  the  restoration  of  the  State  to  the 
white  people,  still  we  found  an  empty  treasury  without  credit. 

For  many  years  under  radical  rule  the  public  printing  had 
been  in  the  hands  of  a  close  corporation  in  sympathy  with  the 
party  then  in  power,  so  that  when  the  Hampton  government 
assumed  control  they  found  it  necessary  to  look  elsewhere  for 
a  printer.  It  was  well  understood  that  the  new  government 
thus  established  under  Hampton  was  without  means,  and  that, 
unless  success  followed,  the  service  thus  rendered  would  go 
unrewarded.  It  was  difficult,  therefore,  to  find  any  one  willing 
to  assume  the  responsibility  of  thus  serving  the  State  in  the 
face  of  so  great  uncertainty.  Under  these  circumstances  Dr. 
Woodrow  came  to  the  relief  of  the  State  and  offered  to  do  the 
public  printing,  with  the  understanding  that,  if  the  Hampton 
government  be  recognised,  he  would  be  paid  the  regular 
charges  for  printing  done ;  but  if  on  the  other  hand  it  failed  of 
recognition,  that  he  would  receive  no  compensation  whatsoever. 
With  this  very  uncertain  promise  of  reward,  he  furnished  the 
public  printing  to  the  Hampton  government  at  his  own  charges, 
relying  solely  upon  his  confidence  in  our  people  and  his  belief 
that  truth  would  at  length  prevail.  This  act  of  patriotism 
may  not  be  remembered  by  many,  and  I  make  mention  of  it, 
not  so  much  for  the  purpose  of  reminding  the  public  of  this 
service,  but  rather  to  illustrate  his  courage  of  conviction  and 
ability  to  meet  great  emergencies. 

About  the  year  1880  the  Presbyterian  Publishing  House  sub- 
mitted a  bid  to  do  the  State  printing  and  received  the  contract. 
Except  for  the  short  experience  during  the  continuance  of  the 
dual  government  in  this  State,  this  was  novel  work  for  this 
establishment,  and  many  doubted  whether  with  that  equipment 
the  work  could  be  successfully  done.    But  Dr.  Woodrow  was 


174 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


deterred  by  no  such  doubts  as  these.  It  had  long  since  been  a 
rule  of  this  House  that  no  work  could  be  done  on  the  Sabbath, 
and  so  when  they  assumed  the  responsible  duty  of  furnishing 
the  public  printing  during  the  busy  season  of  the  legislative 
session,  it  was  predicted  by  many  that  this  long-established  rule 
must  be  broken.  Other  establishments  had  found  it  necessary 
to  violate  the  Sabbath  in  order  to  meet  the  exacting  demands  of 
the  closing  days  of  the  legislative  session,  and  in  order  to  have 
the  journals  of  the  Senate  and  House  ready  for  Monday  morn- 
ing opened  their  offices  on  Sunday.  Here  again  his  executive 
ability  solved  the  difficulty;  and  it  was  well  known  that  even 
during  the  most  busy  season  of  the  Legislature  that  office 
was  closed  at  twelve  o'clock  on  Saturday  night  and  not  opened 
until  after  twelve  o'clock  Sunday  night. 

As  a  further  tribute  to  the  efficiency  of  this  office  it  was  a 
common  saying  among  the  committees  charged  with  the  legisla- 
tive printing  that  it  was  never  better  done  nor  was  the  work 
ever  more  promptly  delivered.  In  fact  it  was  known  that  during 
the  existence  of  the  contract  with  this  Publishing  House  the 
Legislature  was  never  delayed  in  the  progress  of  its  business 
for  lack  of  printed  material.  It  should  further  be  remembered 
that  the  burdens  of  this  office,  as  thus  multiplied,  were  borne 
while  he  occupied,  and  faithfully  discharged,  two  other  most 
important  functions.  He  was  at  that  time  Professor  at  the 
Theological  Seminary,  occupying  the  chair  of  the  "Perkins 
Professorship  of  Natural  Science  in  connexion  with  Revela- 
tion;" and  Professor  at  the  South  Carolina  College,  occupying 
the  chair  of  Geology  and  Mineralogy.  Either  one  of  these 
Chairs  would  be  regarded  as  work  for  any  ordinary  man ;  and 
yet  Dr.  Woodrow  filled  them  both  with  satisfaction  and  dis- 
tinction, and  at  the  same  time  bore  the  burdens  of  the  exacting 
duties  of  this  printing  office. 

But  that  was  not  all.  He  was  during  that  time  editor, 
proprietor,  and  publisher  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian  and  also 
the  publisher,  and  to  a  large  extent  editor,  of  the  Southern 
Presbyterian  Review.  It  may  also  be  further  added  that  for 
several  years  he  was  involved  in  the  Evolution  Controversy, 
which  then  stirred  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church  to  its 
foundation,  in  which  he  bore  the  brunt  of  the  attack,  and 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES 


175 


repelled  with  his  dignified  and  learned  editorials  the  attacks  of 
some  of  the  strongest  men  of  the  Church.  It  was  in  this 
heated  controversy,  while  discharging  the  duties  of  the  various 
functions  above  referred  to,  that  he  successfully  met  the 
assaults  of  his  adversaries,  and  left,  in  permanent  form,  his 
testimony  to  the  truth  which  already  bears  the  sign  of  final 
triumph.  As  the  result  of  this  controversy  he  was,  by  the 
Church,  relieved  of  his  duties  as  Professor  in  the  Seminary, 
but  never  at  any  time  did  he  lose  either  the  respect  or  confi- 
dence of  those  opposed  to  him.  In  fact,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
court  of  last  resort,  which  rendered  the  final  judgment,  the 
presiding  officer,  in  delivering  a  judgment  which  condemned  the 
theory  of  evolution,  accompanied  it  with  the  statement  that  it 
in  no  way  affected  Dr.  Woodrow's  standing  in  the  Church, 

Having  now  been  deprived,  by  the  Church,  of  this  office  as 
teacher,  for  which  he  had  specially  prepared  himself,  he  was 
called  into  a  new  field  of  activity.  In  this  sphere,  though  new 
and  untried,  he  showed  himself  equal  to  the  occasion.  Having 
a  large  interest  in  the  Central  National  Bank,  one  of  the  leading 
banking  institutions  in  this  city,  he  was  called  to  the  presidency, 
which  at  that  time  was  vacant.  This  position  he  filled  from 
1888  until  1891,  when  he  was  called  to  the  presidency  of  the 
South  Carolina  College,  a  position  of  large  usefulness  and  more 
in  sympathy  with  his  life  preparation.  In  order  then  to  devote 
his  time  to  the  up-building  of  this  latter  institution,  he  resigned 
the  presidency  of  the  Central  National  Bank.  As  bank  presi- 
dent, however,  he  had  in  these  few  years  displayed  such 
wonderful  range  of  business  ability  that  the  bank  grew  and 
prospered  and  was  placed  among  the  foremost  banking  institu- 
tions of  the  city.  It  was  a  principle  with  Dr.  Woodrow  to 
undertake  nothing  that  he  did  not  master.  To  this  new 
vocation  he  therefore  concentrated  his  energies,  and  before  long 
he  so  familiarised  himself  with  all  the  details  of  banking  that 
he  became  indeed  the  controlling  factor  in  the  affairs  of  this 
institution,  and  was  recognised  among  his  associates  as 
authority  upon  the  principles  of  banking. 

In  1891  the  Legislature  of  South  Carolina  passed  an  act  for 
the  reorganisation  of  the  South  Carolina  College.  For  several 
years  prior  to  this  time  this  institution  had  been  conducted  as  a 


176 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


university.  The  purpose  of  this  act  was  to  remand  it  to  its 
former  status  of  a  college.  This  was  one  of  the  first  acts,  in 
reference  to  the  College,  passed  by  the  legislature  after  the 
exciting  campaign  of  1890  which  had  divided  the  dominant 
party  of  this  State.  By  many  it  was  predicted  that  the  measure 
would  prove  the  death  blow  of  the  College.  It  at  least  caused 
the  friends  of  this  institution  great  anxiety.  Upon  the  reor- 
ganisation of  the  College  in  June,  1891,  President  McBryde, 
who  had  been  for  many  years  at  the  head  of  the  institution, 
resigned.  The  eyes  of  the  most  zealous  friends  and  supporters 
of  the  College  at  once  turned  to  Dr.  Woodrow  as  the  man  to  be 
President  McBryde's  successor.  He  was  elected  to  this  office, 
and  at  once  undertook  the  arduous  duties  of  re-organising  the 
institution  in  strict  conformity  with  the  terms  of  the  act.  He 
thereupon  resigned  his  position  as  President  of  the  Central 
National  Bank,  in  order  to  devote  his  entire  time  and  energy  to 
this  new  work.  The  shock  produced  by  the  change  contem- 
plated in  the  act  of  re-organisation,  and  the  despondency  which 
generally  prevailed  throughout  the  State  in  consequence  of  the 
political  issues  which  had  divided  the  people,  caused  many  to 
lose  all  hope  of  the  future  of  this  institution  and  many  others 
to  withdraw  their  support.  The  attendance  upon  the  College 
was,  therefore,  greatly  reduced,  and,  for  one  or  two  years 
following,  its  condition  was  truly  disheartening.  Dr.  Wood- 
row,  however,  in  this  responsible  position,  with  unflagging  zeal 
devoted  his  energies  to  the  restoration  of  the  College,  and  when 
six  years  thereafter  he  retired  from  the  presidency,  he  had  fully 
restored  it  in  the  confidence  of  the  people  and  to  its  former  state 
of  prosperity  and  usefulness. 

During  these  six  years  while  discharging  the  onerous  duties 
of  President,  he  also  filled  the  chair  of  Geology  and  Mineralogy, 
and  at  the  same  time  looked  after  every  detail  of  the  admin- 
istrative duties  of  the  official  head.  His  was  not  only  that  of 
general  supervision,  but  it  was  noted  by  all  how  he  looked  after 
every  detail  and  how  intimately  acquainted  he  was  with  every 
department  of  the  institution.  After  six  years  of  successful 
work  in  this  important  position,  in  1897  he  resigned,  when  at 
the  age  of  seventy  years.  This  terminated  Dr.  Woodrow's 
career  as  teacher,  in  which  field  he  had  labored  for  upwards  of 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


177 


a  half  century  and  during  which  time  he  had  left  the  impress  of 
his  noble  character  in  at  least  three  distinguished  institutions 
of  learning  in  the  South.  The  office  of  President  of  the  Cen- 
tral National  Bank,  which  he  resigned  upon  accepting  the 
presidency  of  the  South  Carolina  College,  had  never  been  per- 
manently filled,  and  the  directors  of  that  institution,  upon  his 
retiring  from  the  South  Carolina  College,  at  once  called  him 
again  to  the  presidency  of  the  Central  National  Bank,  which 
position  he  held  until  1902,  when  at  the  age  of  seventy-five  he 
retired  from  active  business. 

During  the  two  periods  that  he  officiated  as  President  of  the 
Central  National  Bank,  he  was  also  associated  with  many  of  the 
business  enterprises  of  the  city,  and  in  fact  with  many  of  those 
which  have  promoted  the  upbuilding  of  the  city  and  are  to-day 
the  basis  of  its  wonderful  growth.  In  all  of  these  business 
relations  Dr.  Woodrow  displayed  his  marked  executive  ability7, 
and  his  judgment  was  ever  most  highly  esteemed  by  those  asso- 
ciated with  him. 

Dr.  Woodrow  by  his  learning  was  able  to  hold  companionship 
with  the  most  learned,  and  the  numerous  degrees  which  were 
conferred  upon  him  by  institutions  of  learning  and  scientific 
associations  at  once  furnish  evidence  of  the  esteem  in  which  he 
was  held  by  the  literary  and  scientific  world.  His  practical 
turn  of  mind  enabled  him  at  the  same  time  to  hold  companion- 
ship with  those  trained  in  the  business  affairs  of  life.  And 
here  too  the  positions  of  responsibility  to  which  he  was  called 
by  those  associated  with  him,  furnish  like  evidence  of  the  con- 
fidence and  esteem  in  which  he  was  held  by  the  business  world. 
In  him  was  combined  knowledge  and  wisdom  in  a  degree  rarely 
witnessed  in  any  one  man.  He  was  eminently  successful  in  the 
field  of  science  and  literature,  and  enjoyed  a  like  success  in  the 
practical  affairs  of  life. 

Another  talent,  with  which  he  was  eminently  endowed,  com- 
bining as  it  were  the  two  just  above  referred  to,  should  not  be 
passed  without  mention.  I  have  reference  to  his  familiarity 
with  parliamentary  and  ecclesiastical  law,  and  his  power  to  lead 
and  control  in  deliberative  bodies.  The  first  called  for  learn- 
ing; and  the  other  for  executive  ability.  The  two  combined 
made  him  a  leader  in  the  courts  of  our  Church,  and  he  was 


12— w 


178 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


frequently  relied  upon  to  unravel  some  complicated  question 
of  parliamentary  procedure.  As  illustrative  of  this  power  I 
may  here  with  propriety  make  mention  of  his  great  influence 
even  among  those  opposed  to  him  in  the  bitter  days  of  the 
Evolution  Controversy  already  referred  to.  In  the  heat  and 
passion  of  that  debate,  when  many  of  our  very  best  men  seemed 
to  lose  their  better  judgment,  and  when  by  their  vote  they  would 
condemn  his  theory,  they  would  after  the  roll-call  then  yield  to 
his  lead  and  in  fact  look  to  him  for  the  solution  of  intricate 
questions  of  practice.  In  deliberative  bodies  he  was  eminently 
a  leader  of  men. 

Another  office  of  a  quasi  business  character  into  which  he 
was  at  an  early  period  of  his  life  called,  the  duties  of  which  he 
discharged  with  such  success  as  at  once  gave  evidence  of  execu- 
tive ability,  should  not  be  passed  unnoticed.  Shortly  after  the 
commencement  of  the  Civil  War,  the  Presbyterian  churches  in 
the  Southern  States  deemed  it  necessary  to  establish  for  them- 
selves a  separate  branch  of  that  Church,  and  so  in  1861  at 
Augusta,  Ga.,  was  organised  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
Confederate  States,  commonly  known  as  the  Southern  Presby- 
terian Church.  Upon  the  organisation  of  this  Church  it  was 
found  necessary  to  establish  all  those  departments  incident  to 
the  successful  discharge  of  the  Church's  work,  among  others 
the  two  very  important  committees  of  Home  and  Foreign  Mis- 
sions. These  were  days  which  not  only  tried  the  souls  of  men, 
but  put  to  the  test  the  Church  of  the  Living  God.  Hemmed  in 
upon  all  sides  as  was  the  Southern  Confederacy,  it  was  difficult 
to  contemplate  that  branch  of  the  Church's  work  falling  under 
the  head  of  Foreign  Missions,  and  so  it  was  a  perplexing  prob- 
lem to  know  who  should  be  put  in  charge  of  this  work.  In 
looking  over  the  field,  the  Church  seemed  at  once  to  settle  upon 
the  subject  of  this  memoir  as  the  one  best  equipped  to  assume 
this  burden,  and  so  Dr.  Woodrow  was  chosen  as  the  Treasurer 
of  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Missions.  At  the  time  of  the 
organisation  of  the  Church  each  committee  on  missions  had  its 
separate  treasurer,  but  in  1863  it  was  deemed  expedient  to 
consolidate  these  offices,  and  Dr.  Woodrow  was  made  the 
treasurer  of  both  committees  of  Foreign  and  Home  Missions. 
These  responsible  duties  he  discharged  during  the  trying  days 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


179 


of  the  war  and  during  the  still  greater  vicissitudes  which  sur- 
rounded the  struggling  Church  during  the  reconstruction  period 
which  followed  the  war.  For  eleven  years,  until  the  failure  of 
his  health  in  1872,  he  discharged  with  fidelity  to  his  Church  this 
responsible  office,  and  until  it  was  necessary  to  go  abroad  for 
the  restoration  of  his  health.  He  then  turned  over  the  treasury 
to  his  successor  with  the  satisfaction  of  knowing  that  during 
the  trying  ordeals  through  which  our  young  Church  had  passed, 
no  one  of  its  servants  in  the  Home  or  Foreign  field  had  been 
allowed  to  suffer  for  lack  while  under  his  management.  The 
duties  of  this  office  of  a  young  and  struggling  Church  called  for 
ability  of  the  first  order.  In  Dr.  Woodrow  was  found  one  who 
met  every  emergency;  and  the  fruits  of  our  foreign  mission 
work  are  now  bearing  testimony  to  the  foundation  then  laid  and 
of  the  eminent  ability  of  those  to  whom  that  work  was  com- 
mitted. 

As  already  stated  the  purpose  of  this  memoir  is  to  deal  with 
the  business  side  of  this  remarkable  man.  I  have  esteemed  it  a 
privilege  to  have  been  associated  with  him  for  at  least  one 
generation,  and  now  a  privilege  to  bear  this  feeble  testimonial 
to  his  intrinsic  worth. 

In  the  community  in  which  he  lived  for  nearly  a  half  century 
he  enjoyed  the  respect  and  esteem  of  all.  He  was  charitable 
without  ostentation;  the  learned  appealed  to  him  for  informa- 
tion ;  the  business  man  for  advice ;  and  the  needy  for  help.  To 
all  of  them  he  responded  with  a  liberal  hand;  and  died  as  he 
had  lived,  enjoying  the  confidence  of  his  fellow-man,  and  with 
charity  toward  all. 


180 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


The  Testimony  of  a  Business  Associate. 


BY  MR.  R.  W.  SHAND. 

I  was  never  thrown  with  the  Rev.  Dr.  James  Woodrow  until 
my  return  to  Columbia  to  reside  in  the  latter  part  of  1883.  Soon 
thereafter  he  was  elected  director  of  a  small  local  corporation, 
of  which  I  was  the  solicitor.  The  Board  of  Directors  met 
frequently.  My  duties  required  me  to  attend  all  of  these 
meetings,  and  Dr.  Woodrow  rarely  if  ever  missed  a  meeting. 
By  reason  thereof,  and  because  also  of  my  business  dealings 
with  the  Central  National  Bank  of  Columbia,  of  which  he  was 
for  many  years  the  president,  and  of  other  business  associa- 
tions, I  knew  him  well.  He  fully  exemplified  the  Christian 
gentleman,  whose  religion  governed  his  daily  transactions  with 
his  fellow-man.  He  was  first  of  all  the  minister  of  Christ,  the 
teacher  of  his  neighbors.  He  was  also  preeminently  a  man  of 
learning,  whose  knowledge  embraced  the  teachings  as  well  of 
philosophy  and  science,  as  of  history  and  political  economy. 
Prevented  by  physical  infirmity,  while  I  knew  him,  from 
preaching  regularly,  he  devoted  himself  to  other  pursuits  in 
which  he  displayed  the  superior  ability  of  the  man  of  business 
without  affecting  or  obscuring  the  sacred  profession  to  which 
he  had  devoted  himself — without  ceasing  in  such  pursuits  to 
make  his  daily  life,  by  precept  and  example,  a  sermon  to  his 
associates. 

He  always  impressed  me  as  a  man  of  great  learning,  force, 
and  virtue,  and  his  reputation  in  the  community  in  which  he 
lived  was,  I  am  sure,  the  same.  His  counsel  was  much  sought 
and  valued,  and  seldom,  if  ever,  was  he  not  well  informed  upon 
the  subject  submitted  to  him.  No  citizen  was  more  esteemed, 
no  scholar  more  respected,  no  churchman  more  regarded,  in 
Columbia,  than  Reverend  James  Woodrow,  D.  D. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


181 


Woodrow  Memorial  Church. 


While  trying  to  decide  what  would  be  the  best,  most  appro- 
priate memorial  to  her  husband.  Dr.  Tames  Woodrow.  Mrs. 
Woodrow's  attention  was  directed  to  the  mission  in  Waverley, 
a  suburb  of  Columbia,  by  reading  an  account  in  The  State  of 
the  plans  formed  by  the  Men's  Auxiliary  of  the  First  church 
for  building  a  chapel  for  the  use  of  the  mission.  She  soon 
decided  that  no  more  suitable  memorial  to  him  could  be  erected 
than  such  a  building,  for  he  entered  the  ministry  that  he  might 
preach  to  the  destitute  mission  churches  in  the  region  round 
about  Oglethorpe  University.  Mrs.  Woodrow  therefore  asked 
to  be  allowed  to  erect  on  the  lot  purchased  for  the  use  of  the 
mission  a  church  building  which  should  stand  as  a  memorial  to 
her  husband.  Those  in  charge  of  the  work  eagerly  consented 
to  her  plans. 

The  following  account  of  the  dedicatory  services  appeared  in 
The  State  of  May  11  and  12,  1908  : 

The  very  beautiful  dedication  service  at  Woodrow  Memorial 
church  yesterday  afternoon  was  attended  by  a  large  audience. 
The  exercises  began  at  five  o'clock,  and  continued  for  almost 
two  hours.  The  dedicatory  sermon  was  delivered  by  Rev. 
Melton  Clark,  son-in-law  of  the  late  Dr.  James  Woodrow,  to 
whom  this  beautiful  edifice  stands  as  a  fitting  and  lasting 
memorial. 

The  total  cost  of  erecting  and  furnishing  this  handsome 
church  was  more  than  SI 5, 000,  every  cent  of  which  was  paid 
by  Mrs.  Woodrow.  It  is  one  of  the  prettiest  church  buildings 
in  the  State  and  is  neatly  furnished. 

The  following  order  of  exercises  was  carried  out : 

Hymn — "Praise  God  from  Whom  All  Blessings  Flow." 

Prayer  by  Rev.  Melton  Clark. 

Hymn — "Arise,  O  King  of  Grace,  Arise." 

Scripture  reading — I  Chronicles,  chapter  22 ;  Rev.  R.  C. 
Reed,  Columbia  Theological  Seminary. 

Prayer — Rev.  S.  M.  Smith,  pastor  First  Presbyterian  church, 
Columbia. 

Hymn— "We  Can  Xot  Build  Alone." 


182 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Offertory,  "Come  Unto  Me"  (Bartlett)— Miss  Petrie,  Col- 
lege for  Women. 

Sermon,  text,  "Arise,  therefore,  and  be  doing;  and  the  Lord 
be  with  thee"— I  Chronicles,  22 :16— Rev.  Melton  Clark,  First 
Presbyterian  church,  Greensboro,  N.  C. 

Prayer. 

Hymn— "Jesus,  Where'er  Thy  People  Meet." 
History  of  the  Woodrow  Memorial  church,  by  D.  W.  Rob- 
inson, member  of  the  building  committee. 

Keys  delivered  to  session  First  Presbyterian  church. 
Hymn— "Holy,  Holy,  Holy,  Lord  God  of  Hosts." 
Benediction. 

Dedicatory  Sermon. 

Following  is  the  text  of  the  sermon  delivered  by  Rev.  Melton 
Clark: 

I  Chron.  22:16:  "Arise  and  be  doing;  and  the  Lord  be  with 
thee." 

These  are  the  closing  words  of  the  charge  which  David 
delivered  to  his  son,  Solomon,  in  reference  to  the  building  of 
the  temple.  David  is  now  an  old  man.  Immediately  after 
speaking  these  urgent,  rousing  words  to  his  son,  he,  as  we  are 
told  in  the  Scriptures,  being  "old  and  full  of  days,  made 
Solomon,  his  son,  king  over  Israel  in  his  stead."  These  last 
words  of  King  David  to  his  son  and  successor  are  great  in 
their  wisdom  and  pathos.  To  catch  their  force  we  must  vivify 
the  scene.  In  our  imaginations  we  must  vitalise  the  characters. 
The  word  must  not  come  to  our  minds  with  didactic  force 
merely.  We  must  supply  them  again  with  the  power  and  influ- 
ence of  the  personal  element.  We  must  remember  and  realise 
that  this  was  the  king  speaking  to  his  son,  who  was  immediately 
to  ascend  the  throne.  That  it  was  the  ambitious  man  who  had 
prepared  abundantly  for  the  work,  giving  directions  to  the  one 
who  was  to  carry  out  and  perfect  his  cherished  ideas.  That  it 
was  the  father  who  knew  how  great  were  the  labors  and  respon- 
sibility that  he  was  now  imposing  upon  his  best  beloved  son. 
Hear  this  kingly  man,  who  had  prepared  abundantly  before  his 
death  for  this  great  work,  as  he  speaks.  Somehow  when  we 
consider  these  words  in  this  way,  they  seem  to  draw  us  very 


* 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


183 


near  to  the  heart  of  this  great  man.  It  is  hard  to  say  which  is 
most  clearly  revealed  here — the  heart  of  the  king,  or  the  heart 
of  the  father,  or  the  heart  of  the  man.  It  is  almost  like  a 
heart's  confessional  when  we  hear  him  say,  "It  was  in  my  heart 
to  build  an  house  unto  the  name  of  the  Lord,  my  God.  But  the 
word  of  the  Lord  came  to  me  saying:  'Thou  hast  shed  blood 
abundantly,  and  hast  made  great  wars.  Thou  shalt  not  build 
an  house  unto  my  name,  because  thou  hast  shed  much  blood 
upon  the  earth  in  my  sight.'  "  But  again  the  tender  accents  of 
an  affectionate  father  are  saying:  "Now,  my  son,  the  Lord  be 
with  thee."  The  words  which  undoubtedly  display  the  greatest 
wisdom,  and  which  show  us  the  thought  and  reflection  of  the 
kingly  statesman  are  those  recorded  in  the  last  clause  of  the  14th 
verse:  "And  thou  mayest  add  thereto."  He  has  just  referred 
to  the  preparations  which  he  has  made  for  this  work;  to  the 
gold  and  silver,  the  brass  and  iron,  the  timber  and  stone.  He 
says :  "These  I  have  collected  in  abundance  for  the  work,  and 
thou  mayest  add  thereto."  This  clause  manifests  David's 
foresight,  his  common  sense,  his  profound  wisdom. 

They  show  us  that  he  did  not  think  that  he  had  done  every- 
thing, great  as  his  preparation  had  been.  And  since  his  prepa- 
ration had  been  so  exhaustive,  his  wisdom  so  searching,  and  his 
ability  so  great,  this  permission  given  to  Solomon  shows  us  that 
David  thought  that  it  was  not  probable  that  his  or  any  one's 
work  could  be  complete  in  this  world.  And  this  is  the  truth. 
Both  nature  and  Revelation  teach  us  that  one  man's  work  for 
God  fits  into  and  follows  on  another  man's  work.  One  soweth 
and  another  reapeth,  and  oftener  one  soweth  for  another  to 
reap.  No  man's  work  in  this  world  is  a  complete  work.  The 
sooner  we  learn  this  lesson  from  David  the  better.  The  very 
best  a  man  can  do  is  to  lay  the  foundation  or  prepare  the  way 
for  another's  work.  Test  this  principle  by  life  experience. 
Isolate  any  man's  work,  and  it  appears  to  be  a  failure.  If  we 
take  the  histories  of  the  greatest  lives  of  the  world  we  will  find 
only  so  many  illustrations  of  this  truth.  When  we  isolate  their 
lives  we  have  to  say  of  them  either  that  the  work  is  incomplete, 
or  that  they  fell  or  were  overthrown  or  were  rejected.  Caesar, 
Napoleon,  Luther,  Calvin,  Knox,  Gladstone,  and  Lee — these 
all  furnish  with  their  lives  illustrations  of  this  truth.  These 


184 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


lives  when  isolated  appear  to  be  failures.  But  connect  those 
lives  with  the  past  and  the  future,  and  what  then?  The  man 
may  have  fallen,  or  may  have  been  overthrown  or  rejected,  but 
his  work  stood ;  or  even  when  this  was  destroyed,  the  influence 
of  the  life  remained  and  could  not  be  robbed  of  its  power. 
Look  at  the  life  in  its  relation  to  the  past,  and  study  it  as  to  its 
effect  upon  the  future,  and  it  will  become  plain  that  every  well 
lived  and  worthy  life  fits  into  God's  purpose  and  promotes  the 
welfare  of  man.  And  when  thus  properly  seen  it  will  be  mani- 
fest that  no  worthy  life  can  be  a  failure.  Some  must  retard 
as  the  race  is  tending  to  evil  and  error,  and  be  censured  there- 
for, and  scornfully  termed  "slow"  and  "behind  the  times/' 
Others  must  lead  the  race,  boldly  and  toil  fully,  in  loneliness 
blazing  the  way  through  the  pathless  wilderness  of  unknown, 
joyless  regions.  They  will  be  condemned  and  probably 
destroyed  by  their  fellow-men,  as  dangerous  and  radical.  But 
these  are  known  and  revered  by  grateful  after  generations,  as 
martyrs  to  humanity,  who  "lived  before  their  time"  and  suffered 
for  so  doing. 

David  evidently  foresaw  the  possibility  of  new  demands  in 
the  future,  and  he  cheerfully  accepted  his  position  in  life  as 
that  of  one  who  prepared  for  the  work  of  another,  and  so  he 
said  to  Solomon:  "Thou  mayest  add  thereto."  David  now 
concluded  his  instructions  with  this  last  solemn  and  urgent 
charge:  "Arise  and  be  doing;  and  the  Lord  be  with  thee." 

1.  "Arise."  The  three  ideas  embodied  in  this  charge  are 
essential  to  the  successful  accomplishment  of  every  great  and 
worthy  work.  Solomon  was  the  man  appointed  by  God  to  do 
this  work.  David  tells  Solomon  in  this  address,  that  long  ago 
God  had  revealed  this  fact  to  him,  and  yet  this  work  will  not 
be  begun  until  Solomon  shall  himself  "arise,"  until  Solomon 
shall  prepare  himself  for  the  doing  of  the  work.  Notwith- 
standing the  fact  that  wood  and  stone  are  abundant,  the 
architect  must  devise  before  the  building  can  go  up.  So  the 
fact  that  David  had  prepared  before  his  death  was  no  reason 
why  Solomon  was  at  liberty  to  do  nothing.  Nay,  but  on  the 
contrary,  this  very  fact  that  David  had  prepared  rendered  it 
more  imperative  that  Solomon  should  himself  prepare.  So,  I 
take  it,  is  it  true  of  us.    We  are  not  to  rest  in  supine  idleness, 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


185 


because  our  fathers  have  wrought  and  given  us  many  things 
conducive  to  comfort  and  happiness.  As  with  Solomon,  the 
quietness  and  peace  were  given  unto  Israel  that  work  might  be 
accomplished ;  that  the  great  house  might  be  built  to  the  glory 
of  Jehovah;  so  because  our  fathers  were  diligent  and  faithful 
in  the  time  of  their  affliction,  and  prepared  many  things  for  us, 
for  that  very  reason  we  must  now  arise  and  prepare  ourselves 
for  a  greater  work.  We  need  to  arise  and  shake  ourselves  and 
gird  up  our  loins  for  the  toil  and  labor  of  the  day.  We  need  to 
arise  to  get  a  higher  and  broader  view  of  life  and  things.  We 
have  been  looking  at  things  for  too  long  a  time  from  the  same 
and  too  low  a  standpoint.  We  need  to  realise  that  greater 
things  than  we  now  think  are  possible  for  us.  Arise  and  see. 
A  part  of  the  preparation  for  our  life's  work  is  for  us  to  see 
what  others  have  done,  and  to  see  that  there  are  others  in 
circumstances  similar  to  our  own,  who  are  doing  a  greater  work 
than  we  are  doing.  We  have  been  resting  too  long.  Let  us 
arise  to  meet  this  opportunity. 

2.  "Be  doing."  It  is  well  for  us  to  remember  that  there  are 
some  people  who  devote  all  of  their  time  to  making  preparation 
to  begin  work,  and  they  never  find  time  to  work.  It  is  true  that 
"getting  ready"  is  very  important,  and  frequently  takes  much 
time.  But  what  does  getting  ready  amount  to  if  the  work  is 
not  done?  David  says  to  Solomon:  "Arise,  be  doing."  You 
remember  how  it  was  with  the  tribes  of  Reuben,  Gad,  Dan,  and 
Asher,  when  Israel  was  about  to  go  to  meet  Sisera  in  battle. 
The  urgent  call  was  sent  to  all  the  tribes  to  come  to  the  help  of 
the  nation.  But  while  the  people  of  Zebulun  and  Naphtali  and 
the  rest  jeoparded  their  lives,  Reuben  and  Gad  remained  in  the 
meadows  with  their  sheep,  and  Dan  and  Asher  remained  with 
their  boats  at  the  seashore.  It  is  said  of  them :  "By  the  water 
courses  of  Reuben  there  were  great  resolves  of  heart,  and  there 
were  great  searchings  of  heart."  While  they  ought  to  have 
been  doing  they  were  still  resolving  and  searching  their  hearts, 
weighing  the  matter,  and  resolving  again,  each  time  coming  to 
the  same  conclusion  as  to  their  duty,  and  yet  going  back  all 
over  the  matter,  searching  again,  and  again  resolving.  So  chey 
did  nothing,  and  were  cursed  for  their  indifference  and  infi- 
delity. 


186 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


"Arise,  be  doing."  We  are  reminded,  both  by  the  expression 
and  the  energy  of  the  words  of  the  preacher :  "Whatsoever  thy 
hand  findeth  to  do,  do  it  with  thy  might."  There  are  three 
important  ideas  presented  by  these  words: 

1.  Our  duty,  the  work  within  our  reach. 

2.  The  sense  of  individual  responsibility.  "Whatsoever  thy 
hand."  The  duty  of  each  one  is  the  work  that  his  or  her  hand 
can  reach.  This  is  the  obvious  import  of  the  words.  To  one 
who  is  in  earnest  the  work  nearest  will  appear  the  most  urgent, 
and  there  will  be  no  difficulty  about  finding  work  within  hand's 
reach. 

3.  "Thy  hand."  It  is  your  own  work  that  you  are  to  do. 
You  can  not  decide  what  your  neighbor's  duty  is,  nor  can  you 
devolve  your  duty  upon  your  neighbor.  And  oh!  the  power 
and  importance  of  this  thought.  Your  duty  ought  to  be  done 
well,  regardless  of  how  or  what  your  neighbor  is  doing.  "To 
every  man  his  work"  is  God's  great  labor  law.  As  some  one 
has  said:  "Though  others  be  unfaithful,  be  not  thou  unfaith- 
ful." 

Could  this  idea  be  fixed  in  the  minds  and  practised  in  the 
lives  of  our  people,  how  wonderful  would  be  our  life.  Let 
each  one  say:  I  will  do  my  part  and  use  the  good  acquired. 
But  no,  some  one  says :  "There  is  no  use  in  my  working  and  I 
won't  work,  for  this  one  and  that  one  does  not  do  this  or  that." 
There  were  many  drones  doubtless  in  Israel,  but  David  says  to 
Solomon,  "Arise,  be  doing."  You,  at  least,  in  this  kingdom, 
must  be  diligent  and  faithful  and  zealous. 

3.  "The  Lord  be  with  thee."  This  is  the  most  important 
idea  in  the  text,  namely,  a  recognition  of  the  limited  value  of 
human  exertion.  We  should  estimate  human  exertion  at 
its  true  value.  It  has  a  value,  we  do  not  deny  this.  We 
emphasise  this  value  when  we  properly  limit  it,  and  we  make  it 
more  useful  when  we  rightly  estimate  it.  The  question  is  not 
what  men  may  think  of  human  power  and  exertion,  but  what  it 
is  worth  in  the  sight  of  God ;  in  other  words,  what  is  it  really 
worth  in  eternity.  There  are  some  things  we  can  do  for  our- 
selves and  ought  to  do  for  self ;  some  things  that  you  must  do, 
for  no  one  else  can  do  them  for  you.  There  are  some  other 
things  that  it  is  useless  for  a  man  to  try  to  do  unaided.  These 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


187 


things  require  the  infinite  power  of  God  to  solve  them,  and  to 
begin  them,  and  to  bring  them  to  perfection. 

Man  is  prone  to  forget  this.  He  likes  to  feel  independent. 
This  is  folly.  All  nature  and  experience  testify  to  the  utter 
folly  of  independence. 

We  are  dependent  creatures.  The  only  question  is,  Upon 
whom  shall  I  depend,  God  or  man  ? 

"Except  the  Lord  build  the  house,  they  labor  in  vain  that 
build  it.  Except  the  Lord  keep  the  city,  the  watchman  waketh 
but  in  vain." 

The  notion  of  a  "self-made  man"  is  an  absurdity.  God  has 
made  us,  and  not  we  ourselves.  Some  men  receive  more  help 
than  others,  but  all  are  helped — wonderfully  helped,  and  in  the 
making  of  a  man  there  are  many  agencies  at  work. 

Let  me  call  your  attention  to  a  false  notion  that  has  arisen 
because  of  a  certain  artificial  and  arbitrary  distinction  which 
was  made  merely  for  convenience.  I  refer  to  the  distinction 
between  things  secular  and  sacred.  The  reference  in  this  text 
is  to  a  religious  work,  but  the  words  apply  to  all.  Strictly 
speaking,  there  is  no  distinction  between  those  things  which  we 
are  pleased  to  term  secular  and  religious.  In  all  things  are  we 
to  glorify  God,  and  whatsoever  we  do  we  are  to  do  all  to  his 
glory. 

The  blacksmith  may  be  as  truly  a  servant  of  God  as  the 
minister,  and  he  may  be  as  truly  doing  God's  work  while  at  his 
forge  as  the  minister  while  preaching.  Therefore,  let  us  all, 
no  matter  what  our  calling  or  work,  offer  our  service  to  God, 
and  learn  to  depend  on  him,  and  not  on  man  or  circumstances 
for  the  direction  of  our  energies,  and  let  us  depend  on  him  first 
and  always  for  that  joy,  without  which  our  lives  would  be 
empty  and  barren.  *  *  * 

In  conclusion  I  would  say  a  few  words  of  him,  to  whose 
memory  this  beautiful  temple  of  worship  was  erected  and  now 
stands. 

The  influence  of  his  life  upon  my  life  was  profound.  That 
influence  was  exerted  as  my  teacher,  but  to  a  still  greater  degree 
in  another  sphere.  It  will  ever  be  a  cause  of  rejoicing  as  it  is 
a  source  of  strength  that  I  was  admitted  by  this  great  teacher 
into  the  charmed  circle  of  his  intimate  friends.    Many  of  the 


188 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


most  valuable  lessons  that  I  have  learned  were  acquired  during 
the  delightful  hours  of  familiar  intercourse  with  him. 

His  life  has  been  to  me  a  commentary  on  this  text.  God 
called  him  to  duty  and  service.  He  arose.  And  because  he 
was  intellectually  a  giant — standing  head  and  shoulders  above 
the  men  of  his  generation — he  saw  beyond  the  range  of  others. 

This  vision  of  truth,  bringing  light  to  his  mind,  brought  trial 
and  persecution  also  from  lesser  souls  who  could  not  under- 
stand. His  industry  was  indefatigable.  He  seemed  never  to 
weary.  He  would  easily  in  his  day's  work  do  the  labor  of 
three  men.  He  was  doing  all  the  time,  and  never  were  his 
efforts  misdirected. 

And  God  was  with  him.  From  his  earliest  infancy  he  recog- 
nised the  guiding  hand  of  God  in  his  life.  Throughout  all  of 
his  long  and  eventful  life,  in  the  midst  of  his  manifold  labors 
and  activities,  whether  driven  by  ambition  or  drawn  by  duty,  he 
ever  recognised  his  dependence  upon  God,  whose  servant  he 
was  and  whom  he  served.    This  made  him  a  man  of  humility. 

His  wide  and  accurate  knowledge  of  physical  science,  his 
intimate  acquaintance  with  classic  literature,  his  familiarity 
with  history,  ancient  and  modern,  and  his  influence  and  power 
with  men,  these  things  only  made  him  more  humble  before 
God. 

I  would  repeat  to  you  two  little  verses  which  were  very  dear 
to  him,  and  which  I  am  persuaded  express  simply  but  faithfully 
and  fully  the  doctrine,  the  philosophy,  and  the  faith  of  James 
Woodrow : 

"And  when  I'm  to  die, 
Receive  me,  I'll  cry, 
For  Jesus  has  loved  me, 
I  cannot  tell  why; 
But  this  I  can  find, 
We  two  are  so  joined, 
He'll  not  be  in  glory 
And  leave  me  behind." 

Mr.  D.  W.  Robinson,  a  member  of  the  building  committee 
which  had  charge  of  the  erection  of  the  Woodrow  Memorial 
church  read  the  following  historical  sketch  of  the  church : 

When  the  writer  moved  to  Columbia  in  December,  1900,  he 
found  a  mission  Sabbath  school  being  conducted  in  Waverley, 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


189 


at  the  corner  of  Taylor  and  Pine  streets.  According  to  the 
best  information  obtainable  this  mission  had  been  conducted  as 
a  Sabbath  school  and  as  a  mid-week  prayer  meeting  for  several 
years  prior  thereto,  dating  back  to  June,  1899.  About  the 
year  1901  or  1902  this  mission  was  moved  to  the  public  school 
house  at  the  corner  of  Oak  and  Lady  streets,  where  it  has  been 
conducted  ever  since.  It  was  first  conducted  as  a  Sabbath 
school,  with  prayer  meeting  services  in  mid-week,  under  the 
superintendence  of  various  persons  from  time  to  time.  *  *  * 

To  those  who  attended  this  mission  and  watched  its  progress, 
and  to  the  students  of  the  community  and  local  surroundings 
it  has  been  apparent  for  the  past  two  years  that  increased 
facilities  were  needed  and  that  a  church  or  chapel  was  necessary 
in  this  suburb  of  the  city.  In  October,  1906,  the  session  of  the 
First  Presbyterian  church  became  interested  in  this  work  and 
after  careful  consideration  became  convinced  that  this  was  a 
field  of  opportunity  for  their  home  mission  spirit.  The  men's 
auxiliary  of  that  church  took  up  the  work  with  eagerness  and 
has  manifested  a  most  kindly  and  intelligent  interest  in  it  con- 
tinuously since  that  time.  *  *  *  * 

In  response  to  the  growing  activities  of  the  mission  the  men's 
auxiliary,  in  the  year  1906,  set  about  providing  a  home  for  the 
mission  and  endeavoring  to  raise  the  necessary  funds  therefor. 
They  had  hoped  to  procure  a  small  lot  and  provide  a  neat  but 
plain  and  economical  chapel  or  Sunday  school  room,  which 
could  be  utilised  for  the  ordinary  church  purposes.  Even  to  do 
this  meant  a  considerable  tax  on  their  resources.  They  raised 
the  funds  for  and  purchased  first  another  lot,  which  was  subse- 
quently resold  and  the  lot  on  which  we  now  stand  was 
purchased  in  June,  1907. 

Just  at  this  time  when  they  were  wrestling  with  the  problem 
of  how  next  to  proceed,  he  "who  wings  an  angel,  guides  a 
sparrow,"  directed  the  thought  and  attention  of  a  kindly  and 
charitable  heart  to  this  mission.  After  a  study  of  the  field,  its 
history  and  its  promise,  Mrs.  Woodrow  determined  to  assist  the 
mission  and  in  doing  so  to  furnish  a  suitable  and  permanent 
memorial  to  her  learned  and  distinguished  husband,  the  late  Dr, 
James  Woodrow.    This  building,  commenced  in  September, 


190 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


1907,  completed  during  the  past  week,  its  furniture  and  fur- 
nishings complete,  from  the  foundation  stone  to  tower  cap,  is 
the  splendid  gift  of  her  generosity  to  the  Church  and  to  Christ, 
its  head,  and  a  worthy  memorial  of  the  distinguished  scholar 
and  minister  whose  name  it  honors  and  bears.  *  *  * 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


191 


Mrs.  Woodrow's  Memorial  Gift  to  the  Young'  Men's 
Christian  Association. 


Dr.  and  Mrs.  Woodrow  were  married  Aug.  4,  1857 ;  thus,  if 
he  had  been  spared  to  her  a  few  more  months,  they  would  have 
celebrated  their  Golden  Wedding  Aug.  4,  1907.  Though  so 
sorely  bereft,  Mrs.  Woodrow  yet  wished  to  commemorate  the 
occasion  and  to  show  her  gratitude  for  all  their  beautiful, 
golden  years  together.  While  trying  to  find  the  best  way  to  do 
this,  she  read  in  The  State  the  announcement  that  the  Board  of 
Directors  of  the  Young  Men's  Christian  Association  of  Colum- 
bia had  decided  to  sell  their  Main  street  property  and  to  buy  a 
lot  and  erect  a  larger,  more  conveniently  arranged  building, 
provided  a  suitable  lot  near  the  business  centre  of  the  city 
could  be  bought  at  a  reasonable  figure.  After  considering  the 
question  very  carefully  in  all  its  bearings,  Mrs.  Woodrow 
offered  to  give  the  Association  a  lot,  selecting  for  this  purpose 
a  part  of  her  home  place.  What  made  this  seem  to  her  a 
peculiarly  fitting  memorial  of  their  happy  life  together  was  that 
she  as  well  as  Dr.  Woodrow  had  been  intimately  associated 
with  boys  and  young  men  all  her  life,  her  earliest  home  having 
been  situated  at  the  foot  of  the  campus  of  Oglethorpe  Univer- 
sity, where  her  father,  the  Rev.  J.  W.  Baker,  was  professor  for 
many  years  during  his  pastorate  of  the  church  at  Milledgeville, 
Ga. 

Mrs.  Woodrow's  gift  was  eagerly  and  gratefully  accepted  by 
the  Association,  as  will  be  seen  from  the  following  account, 
which  appeared  in  The  State: 

The  Young  Men's  Christian  Association  has  been  the  reci- 
pient of  the  gift  of  a  beautifully  situated  lot  of  land,  the  donor 
being  Mrs.  James  Woodrow,  widow  of  the  great  Presbyterian 
theologian  who  died  last  spring.  This  lot  occupies  a  position 
in  the  middle  of  the  block  on  Sumter  street  between  Washing- 
ton and  Plain.  Its  frontage  is  eighty  feet  and  its  depth  two 
hundred  nine  and  a  half  feet. 

This  will  be  an  ideal  location  for  a  new  home  for  the  Y.  M. 
C.  A.,  and  a  new  home  will  be  placed  there  before  many  months. 


192 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Some  time  ago  The  State  published  a  statement  to  the  effect 
that  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  had  been  offered  $50,000  for  its  home  on 
the  corner  of  Main  and  Lady  streets.  It  was  stated  in  the 
article  that  the  directors  would  probably  accept  the  offer,  if 
there  could  be  found  a  suitable  building  lot  on  a  near-by  street, 
Main  street  property  being  almost  out  of  the  reach  of  the  asso- 
ciation. 

In  a  few  days  after  this  announcement  Mr.  Thomas  S.  Bryan, 
president  of  the  Association,  was  able  to  announce  that  he  had 
received  this  generous  offer  from  Mrs.  Woodrow.  The  spot  is 
almost  ideal.  Within  one  square  of  Main  street,  just  in  rear  of 
Wright's  hotel,  within  two  squares  of  the  Loan  and  Exchange 
bank  building,  where  more  young  men  work  than  in  any  other 
one  block  in  the  city,  just  off  of  Law  Range,  where  the  influence 
of  such  a  building  and  its  work  will  not  be  amiss,  especially  in 
election  years,  with  a  Baptist  church  in  the  same  square,  a 
Presbyterian  and  a  Methodist  church  less  than  two  squares 
away,  and  the  beautiful  old  Trinity  church  also  quite  near,  this 
lot  is  admirably  situated  so  that  young  men  can  drop  in  on  their 
way  to  and  from  their  work  or  to  and  from  their  churches. 

On  one  side  is  the  churchyard  of  the  First  Baptist  church, 
surrounded  with  a  high  brick  wall,  on  the  rear  is  the  property 
of  the  city  schools,  and  on  the  other  side  is  the  home  of  Mrs. 
Woodrow.  Thus  surrounded,  the  new  Y.  M.  C.  A.  building 
will  have  the  repose  and  privacy  of  a  home  as  well  as  the 
attraction  of  being  convenient  to  car  lines  and  to  the  principal 
business  and  residence  streets  of  the  city. 

Cause  of  Rejoicing. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  board  of  directors  of  the  Y.  M.  C.  A. 
last  night  the  generous  offer  of  Mrs.  Woodrow  was  accepted 
with  gratification.  It  was  moved  by  Mr.  Edwin  G.  Seibles: 
"That  the  offer  of  Mrs.  Woodrow  to  convey  to  this  Association 
for  its  purposes  a  lot  of  eighty  feet  front  on  Sumter  street  at 
the  rear  of  her  home  be  accepted  with  cordial  thanks  to  the 
generous  donor,  and  that  the  president  be  authorised  to  inform 
her  of  the  action  of  this  board  and  to  express  to  her  our  appre- 
ciation and  gratitude."  This  was  seconded  by  Dr.  Lancaster, 
and  the  resolution  was  adopted  by  a  rising  vote,  Mr.  F.  F. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


193 


Whilden  being  asked  to  make  a  prayer  of  thanksgiving,  while 
they  were  yet  standing. 

As  stated  some  time  ago  in  an  article  in  The  State,  the  build- 
ing now  in  use  cost  less  than  $30,000  with  the  lot.  It  is  said 
that  when  the  transfer  of  this  property  is  made  the  Association 
will  have  $27,500  with  which  to  begin  the  erection  of  a  new 
building  on  its  lot  on  Sumter  street.  This  fund  will  be  inade- 
quate to  erect  such  a  structure  as  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  will  need  in 
a  city  of  100,000  people,  the  population  Columbia  hopes  to  have 
in  less  than  ten  years. 

It  will  be  recalled  that  when  the  present  Y.  M.  C.  A.  building, 
the  new  union  station,  and  some  other  buildings  were  erected 
less  than  ten  years  ago,  it  was  thought  these  would  be  adequate 
for  years  to  come,  but  even  now  the  accommodations  of  these 
several  buildings  are  cramped,  and  when  the  new  Y.  M.  C.  A. 
is  built  it  will  be  with  the  idea  in  view  that  in  a  very  few  years 
Columbia  will  be  a  city  of  100,000  inhabitants. 

And  if  Mrs.  Woodrow  will  be  gratified  to  learn  of  the  appre- 
ciation felt  by  the  members  of  the  board  of  directors  of  the 
Y.  M.  C.  A.,  what  must  be  her  increased  sense  of  pride  and 
satisfaction  to  learn  of  the  manner  in  which  the  news  was 
received  by  the  young  men  themselves  last  night.  The  news 
was  abroad  in  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  building  and  the  young  men  were 
in  a  very  happy  frame  of  mind.  They  appreciate  the  great 
good  that  has  come  into  their  lives  through  the  medium  of  this 
institution ;  and  now  that  its  work  is  to  be  enlarged  and  made 
more  in  keeping  with  the  growing  city  by  reason  of  a  larger 
equipment,  the  young  men  are  indeed  grateful  to  the  good 
woman  who,  through  her  beneficence,  has  made  this  possible 

The  present  building  was  erected  during  the  administration 
of  Mr.  F.  H.  Hyatt,  president.  Up  to  that  time  the  Association 
had  had  one  or  two  rooms  of  an  upper  floor  on  Main  street. 
The  lot  on  which  the  building  stands  cost  $8,000.  Careful  real 
estate  men  say  that  to-day  it  is  worth  $30,000.  The  Associa- 
tion, when  it  began  this  building  had  for  assets  a  lot  of  faith,  a 
good  deal  more  of  nerve,  and  fair  credit  at  the  banks. 

Those  directors  who  through  these  years  of  stress  and  strug- 
gle and  misgivings  and  heartaches  have  carried  the  burden  of 
finance  as  well  as  the  responsibility  for  the  betterment  of  the 


IS— w 


194 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


young  men  of  Columbia,  these  men  now  feel  that  they  can  heave 
a  sigh  of  relief,  for  the  Y.  M.  C.  A.  will  hereafter  have  some- 
thing tangible,  although  another  long  climb  is  ahead  to  raise  the 
amount  necessary  to  erect  a  beautiful  home. 

The  president,  Mr.  Bryan,  was  authorised  to  take  steps  at 
once  to  dispose  of  the  present  home  on  Main  street  and  to  get 
another  at  once. 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


195 


An  Appreciation. 

BY  THE  REV.  DR.  THORNTON  WHAUNG. 

I  have  just  returned  from  the  grave  of  the  greatest  teacher 
under  whose  instructions  I  was  ever  privileged  to  sit.  His 
ashes  rest  in  beautiful  Elmwood  Cemetery  in  Columbia,  S.  C, 
upon  a  lofty  and  commanding  site  overlooking  the  Congaree 
River  and  the  wooded  hills  which  stretch  far  away  to  the  south- 
west, while  to  the  south  and  east  lies  the  city  in  which  he  lived 
for  more  than  two-score  years,  until  by  general  consent  he 
became  its  first  citizen.  Indeed  South  Carolina  came  to  place 
his  name  high  on  the  roll  of  her  illustrious  public  men — whose 
possession  could  not  be  confined  to  any  particular  sect  or  party. 
The  years  which  have  so  swiftly  passed  since  his  death  have 
served  to  bring  the  whole  wide  constituency  of  scholars  and 
thinkers  in  our  Southland  and  in  our  country  into  agreement  as 
to  his  commanding  services  in  the  realm  to  which  he  gave  his 
life,  namely,  the  relations  between  religion  and  science. 

A  massive  granite  monument,  simple  and  strong,  without 
adventitious  ornaments,  with  the  deeper  beauty  of  symmetry  of 
proportion  and  stability  of  structure,  fitly  marks  his  earthly 
resting-place  and  stands  as  the  visible  symbol  of  the  character 
and  worth  and  work  of  the  man.  The  inscription  which  it 
bears  reads : 

James  Woodrow, 
Born  in  Carlisle,  England, 

May  30th,  1828. 
Died  in  Columbia,  S.  C, 
Jan.  17th,  1907. 
Having  served  his  generation  by  the  will  of  God, 
he  fell  on  sleep. 

I  can  never  forget  my  first  view  of  him  more  than  twenty- 
five  years  ago  when  I  took  my  place  in  his  class  as  a  student  in 
Columbia  Seminary  and  for  the  first  time  felt  the  influence  of 
this  master  teacher  and  searcher  of  the  minds  of  his  students. 
His  slight  figure  above  the  medium  height,  his  keen,  penetrating 
eye,  his  intellectual  countenance,  his  simple  and  yet  intense  and 


196 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


magnetic  manner  caught  the  student's  attention ;  while  every 
sentence  which  fell  from  his  lips,  clear  as  crystal  and  weighty 
with  thought,  proclaimed  the  thinker  and  scholar  and  master 
in  his  chosen  field  of  study.  Subsequent  years  confirmed  the 
impressions  of  those  early  days,  and  ripened  into  deep  admira- 
tion and  sincere  affection  as  the  student  was  admitted  into  one 
of  the  noblest  and  most  uplifting  friendships  of  his  life.  I  shall 
attempt  no  labored  analysis  of  Dr.  Woodrow's  character,  nor 
detailed  account  of  his  services,  but  out  of  a  full  and  grateful 
heart  give  some  expression  of  my  candid  estimate  of  his  work 
and  personal  character. 

As  a  man  Dr.  Woodrow  was  the  most  truthful  human  being 
I  have  ever  known.  He  had  a  genius  for  reality  and  a  passion 
for  statements  which  accurately  fitted  the  fact.  His  love  for 
truth,  his  search  for  it,  and  his  skill  in  expressing  it  in  adequate 
forms  were  as  much  a  moral  and  spiritual  trait  as  a  mental 
characteristic.  His  scorn  for  falsehood,  his  unmeasured 
detestation  of  a  lie  was  the  equal  of  that  of  the  great  Stonewall 
Jackson, — or  of  Calvin  himself.  He  made  no  statements  of 
fact  which  subsequent  discoveries  made  it  necessary  to  qualify, 
because  he  stated  nothing  as  a  fact  which  he  did  not  know  to  be 
one.  Sincerity  which  disclaimed  all  simulation  and  knew  no 
affectation  was  at  the  foundation  of  his  whole  being.  Disguise 
of  opinion,  compromise  of  principle,  double-dealing  in  any 
form,  the  milder  forms  of  equivocation  in  which  the  profess- 
edly saintly  sometimes  indulge  were  as  impossible  to  him  as  the 
surrender  of  his  own  being,  and  were  so  foreign  to  his  nature 
that  he  sometimes  showed  a  strange  incapacity  to  see  them  in 
others  until  imperative  circumstances  forced  their  recognition. 
A  nature  so  strong  and  true  could  not  come  in  contact  with  a 
falsehood  and  treat  it  in  a  dilletante  and  tolerant  fashion. 

Coupled  with  this  was  a  great  heart  which  overflowed  with 
affection  for  those  whom  he  trusted.  The  proverbial  Scotch 
reserve  combined  with  an  innate  dignity  made  it  impossible  for 
him  "to  wear  his  heart  upon  his  sleeve  for  daws  to  peck  at;" 
but  the  friends  who  came  close  to  him  found  beneath  that 
reserve  a  warm  and  sympathetic  heart.  And  hundreds  of  his 
former  students  cherish  for  him  an  enthusiastic  admiration  and 
love  which  a  cold  and  unemotional  nature  could  never  have 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


19? 


aroused,  and  which  could  only  be  the  reward  of  a  great  heart 
filled  with  the  most  vital  sympathies.  His  hundreds  of  students 
loved  him  because  back  of  that  stately  reserve  and  deeper  than 
that  penetrating  intellect,  they  saw  the  wise  affection  and  dis- 
criminating interest  with  which  he  regarded  every  one  of  them, 
and  so  they  delight  in  imagination  still  to  sit  at  his  feet. 

As  a  thinker  and  scholar  Dr.  Woodrow  was  most  concerned 
to  know  the  truth,  and  so  exhaustless  patience  and  exhaustive 
thoroughness  marked  his  investigations  and  studies.  He  fur- 
nished an  admirable  illustration  of  the  true  scientific  method  in 
the  pursuit  of  truth,  although  far  removed  from  that  false, 
arrogant  temper  which  asserts  that  science,  technically  so  called, 
is  the  only  field  in  which  reality  can  certainly  be  found  by  the 
human  intelligence.  Of  all  the  great  scholars  I  have  known  he 
was  the  most  exact  and  passionless  in  recognising  the  limita- 
tions of  his  own  knowledge.  There  are  many  who  will  recall 
an  incident  which  deserves  to  be  famous,  when  in  the  course  of 
the  controversy  on  evolution,  a  gentleman,  professor  of  Eng- 
lish Language  in  some  college,  who  was  opposed  to  him  in 
debate,  asked  him  if  a  certain  law  did  not  apply  to  the  develop- 
ment of  language,  and  if  so  did  it  not  furnish  a  parallel  to  evolu- 
tion in  the  animal  kingdom ;  to  which  Dr.  Woodrow  replied 
that  he  knew  nothing  of  evolution  upon  the  linguistic  side, 
although  he  did  know  something  of  it  from  the  side  of  biology. 
"But,'''  added  he,  "because  I  know  something  of  development  as 
a  fact  in  biology  is  no  reason  why  I  should  conclude  that  I  also 
know  something  of  the  development  or  evolution  of  language." 
Every  hearer  recognised  the  point,  and  saw  its  application  at  the 
very  moment. 

The  chief  achievement  of  Dr.  Woodrow  as  a  scholar  and 
thinker  is  found  in  his  famous  Address  on  "Evolution  as 
Related  to  the  World,  the  Lower  Animals,  and  Man."  and  in 
articles  published  in  vindication  of  the  position  maintained 
therein.  This  Address  occasioned  a  violent  and  long-continued 
controversy;  but  slowly  and  imperceptibly  the  Church  has  come 
to  the  platform  which  he  so  carefully  and  completely  con- 
structed, and  will  doubtless  rest  therein  until  the  end  of  time. 
The  only  original  contribution  made  by  our  Church  to  the 
world's  scholarship  is  found  in  the  signal  service  which  this 


198 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


learned  professor  thus  rendered  by  giving  what  is  practically  a 
demonstration  that  there  can  be  no  contradiction  between  God's 
word  rightly  interpreted  and  God's  works  rightly  understood. 
His  reverence  for  the  inspired  word,  his  loyalty  to  the  Confes- 
sion and  Standards,  his  adamantine  orthodoxy,  his  sanity  and 
balance  as  a  thinker,  did  not  prevent  the  controversy  with 
which  his  name  is  linked;  but  they  have  received  their  reward 
at  last  in  the  wide,  the  general,  the  almost  unanimous  recogni- 
tion of  the  safety  and  truth  of  the  principles  for  which  he 
stood,  and  for  which  he  sacrificed  so  much.  "The  blood  of 
the  martyrs  is  the  seed  of  the  Church,"  and  every  advance  in 
the  Kingdom  must  be  paid  for  at  a  great  cost  to  some  valiant 
leader,  who,  maligned  to-day,  is  crowned  to-morrow. 

In  this  controversy  the  writer  has  often  thought  that  Dr. 
Woodrow's  wonderful  powers  as  a  debater  in  detecting  falla- 
cies, in  exposing  error,  in  demolishing  falsehood,  by  which  he 
annihilated  his  antagonist's  positions,  sometimes  made  the 
impression  that  he  had  annihilated  his  antagonist  also.  But  no 
one  was  more  courteous  in  debate  until  his  own  candor  or 
honesty  was  questioned,  and  then  the  magnificent  wit  and 
sarcasm  which  he  possessed  in  so  unique  degree  found  play  in 
an  exhibition  which  it  was  worth  travelling  a  thousand  miles  to 
witness. 

As  a  teacher  Dr.  Woodrow  had  a  clearness  of  vision,  a  calm 
precision  in  statement,  a  thorough  comprehension  of  the  stu- 
dent's difficulties,  a  quick  perception  of  any  idiosyncracies  in 
the  student's  mental  movements,  which  placed  him  without  a 
peer  in  the  art  of  stimulating  and  exploring  the  minds  of  those 
fortunate  enough  to  be  taught  by  him.  If  Socrates  used  the 
obstetric  method,  Dr.  Woodrow  was  master  of  it,  too.  Noth- 
ing could  confuse  or  deceive  that  unruffled  intelligence.  The 
student  never  tried  but  once  to  prove  that  his  mind  contained 
more  than  it  really  did.  And  the  professor  never  sought  to 
suggest  that  his  student's  mind  contained  less  than  it  really  did. 
A  student  was  often  surprised  that  the  professor's  skill  discov- 
ered so  much  in  another  student's  mind,  and  he  was  often 
surprised  that  the  professor's  skill  had  not  found  more  in  the 
student's  own  mind;  but  wisdom  and  grace  and  truth  were 
ruling  the  whole  process  and  good  came  out  of  it  for  all  con- 


CHARACTER  SKETCHES. 


199 


cerned.  Few  were  the  students  so  dull  that  they  were  not 
aroused  and  inspired  by  contact  with  a  mind  so  mature,  pene- 
trating, encyclopaedic  in  its  scholarship,  powerful  in  its  grasp, 
looking  in  every  direction  like  the  seraphim  of  Ezekiel  covered 
with  eyes  which  gazed  at  every  point  of  the  compass,  so  judicial 
that  no  subterfuge  beclouded  its  vision.  And  few  were  the 
students  who  were  so  unresponsive  that  they  were  not  filled 
with  admiration  and  reverential  affection  for  their  teacher,  and 
who  have  not  remembered  for  life  the  object  lesson  presented 
by  the  mind  and  method  and  spirit  of  their  beloved  professor. 
I  said  to  an  old  student  of  his,  then  President  of  a  great  State 
University,  "I  regard  Dr.  Woodrow's  intellect  as  the  most 
perfect  I  have  ever  known."    He  said  promptly,  "I  do,  too." 

But  the  deepest  impression  always  and  everywhere  was  that 
of  the  man,  sincere,  real,  incorruptible,  without  cant  or  pretence, 
loving  the  truth  and  hating  a  lie,  fearless,  uncompromising, 
following  fact  wherever  it  led,  reverential  toward  God's  word 
and  with  a  profound  awe  toward  God.  in  short,  a  real  man  and 
a  real  man  of  God — this  is  the  Dr.  Woodrow  whom  hundreds 
of  his  old  students  delight  to  honor,  and  whose  name  will  be 
fragrant  in  their  memories  as  long  as  memory  shall  do  its  work. 
Because  under  God  he  was  a  mighty  power  making  for  righte- 
ousness in  their  lives,  and  because  many  of  them  are  stronger 
to  trample  evil  under  their  feet  and  dare  bravely  to  do  the  right 
since  they  knew  and  honored  him — for  these  reasons  grateful 
hearts  all  over  our  land  rise  up  to  call  him  blessed,  and  to  thank 
God  for  the  work  which  he  still  continues  to  do  for  them. 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


HIS  TEACHINGS 

AS 

CONTAINED  IN  HIS  SERMONS,  ADDRESSES. 
EDITORIALS,  ETC. 


Collected  and  Arranged  by  His  Daughter, 
Marion  W.  Woodrow. 


PART  II. 


PRINTED  BY  THE  R.  L.  BRYAN  COMPANY. 
COLUMBIA,  S.  C. 

1909. 


PART  II. 
His  Teachings. 


Sermon. 


John  1:36.  "And  looking  upon  Jesus  as  he  walked,  he  saith,  Behold 
the  Lamb  of  God !" 

For  the  few  months  just  before  these  words  were  uttered,  a 
voice  was  heard  in  the  wilderness,  calling  upon  all  men  to  make 
straight  the  way  of  the  Lord,  to  repent,  for  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  was  at  hand.  It  was  the  voice  of  him  who  came,  not 
himself  to  drive  away  the  thick  darkness  which  brooded  over 
the  face  of  the  whole  earth,  but  to  bear  witness  of  the  coming 
of  that  true  Light  which  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into 
the  world.  He  himself  had  not  yet  been  permitted  to  behold 
it;  at  length  it  dawns  upon  his  sight.  Clothed  in  flesh  the 
Word,  the  true  Light,  is  manifested  to  him;  and  now  he 
changes  his  prediction  to  the  joyful  announcement  of  its  accom- 
plishment; and  whether  with  the  multitudes  who  resorted  to 
him,  or  with  but  two  of  his  disciples,  he  repeats  the  call,  Behold 
the  Lamb  of  God;  behold  the  Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away 
the  sin  of  the  world.  This  call  was  uttered  many  centuries 
ago;  but  it  sounds  its  notes  across  that  chasm  of  time,  and 
to-day  we  are  still  called  upon  to  behold  the  Lamb  of  God. 

It  has  pleased  God  in  all  ages  of  the  world  to  make  his  will 
known  to  man  by  signs  and  emblems,  by  types  and  shadows,  as 
well  as  more  directly  by  words.  When  our  arch-enemy  had 
gained  over  the  mother  of  our  race  his  first  great  victory,  so 
terrible  in  its  consequences,  God  did  not  announce  to  her  that 
at  some  future  time  his  eternal  Son  would  assume  her  nature, 
and  clothed  with  it,  would  overwhelm  her  tempter  with  defeat, 
and  binding  him  in  chains,  would  free  her  and  all  of  her  pos- 
terity who  would  believe  from  captivity,  and  restore  the  image 
which  she  had  lost,  at  the  cost  to  himself  of  Gethsemane's 
agonies  and  the  bloody  death  of  the  cross.  But  he  presented 
all  this  to  the  eye  of  faith,  when  he  said  to  the  serpent,  in  her 
hearing,  "I  will  put  enmity  between  thee  and  the  woman,  and 
between  thy  seed  and  her  seed ;  it  shall  bruise  thy  head,  and 
thou  shalt  bruise  his  heel."  And  in  our  own  day,  the  suffer- 
ings and  death  of  the  same  crucified  One  are  presented  to  us 
most  vividly  in  the  emblems  which  we  receive,  according  to  his 


202 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


own  appointment,  of  his  broken  body  and  shed  blood.  And  so 
it  has  been  in  all  the  intervening  ages  of  the  world. 

The  most  prominent  type  of  the  cardinal  idea  of  Christianity 
— that  the  death  of  a  fit  substitute  will  be  accepted  in  place  of 
the  death  of  the  sinner  himself — was  a  lamb  slain,  offered  to 
God  in  sacrifice.  Very  probably  it  was  made  known  to  our 
first  parents  by  the  Lord  himself  in  subsequent  communica- 
tions of  his  will  to  them,  that  this  was  an  appropriate  repre- 
sentation of  the  death  of  him  in  whom  they  must  trust  as  their 
substitute :  for  during  their  life  time  Abel  brought  of  the  first- 
lings of  his  flock  and  of  the  fat  thereof  an  offering  unto  the 
Lord.  Gen.  4:4.  And  Noah,  only  the  eighth  from  Adam, 
took  of  every  clean  beast  and  offered  burnt  offerings  on  the 
altar.  Gen.  8:20.  The  familiarity  of  even  the  youngest  with 
the  lamb  as  the  sacrifice  is  seen  from  the  narrative  of  Abra- 
ham's journey  to  offer  up  Isaac.  On  the  sad  morning  of  the 
third  day,  as  the  Patriarch  drew  near  to  the  place  where  the 
sacrifice  was  to  be  offered,  his  son  broke  the  silence  with,  "My 
father,  behold  the  fire  and  the  wood ;  but  where  is  the  lamb  for 
the  burnt-offering."  Gen.  22 :7.  And  so  in  later  times,  this 
type  was  kept  daily  before  the  eyes  of  God's  chosen  people ;  for 
there  were  to  be  offered  day  by  day  continually  two  lambs  of 
the  first  year,  one  in  the  morning,  and  the  other  at  even.  Ex. 
29:38. 

The  slaying  of  any  animal  represented  the  sacrifice  of  Christ ; 
but  there  seems  to  be  a  peculiar  fitness  in  the  lamb,  that  gentle, 
innocent,  uncomplaining  creature,  to  typify  him  who  was  holy 
and  harmless,  and  who  when  reviled,  reviled  not  again.  But 
it  is  in  the  paschal  lamb  that  we  have  most  clearly  revealed  to 
us  the  design  of  the  death  of  our  substitute.  Let  us  consider, 
then,  the  circumstances  attending  the  institution  of  the  pass- 
over  that  we  may  understand  fully  why  Jesus  was  pointed  out 
by  John  as  the  Lamb  of  God. 

When  Jacob  with  his  sons  went  to  Egypt  at  the  invitation  of 
Pharaoh  to  become  his  honored  guests,  there  seemed  to  be  little 
likelihood  that  their  descendants  in  a  few  generations  would  be 
reduced  to  the  most  abject  slavery.  And  yet  so  it  came  to  pass. 
Though  the  whole  land  of  Egypt  owed  its  salvation  to  Joseph 
as  God's  instrument,  a  few  generations  were  sufficient  to  wipe 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


203 


out  the  memory  of  this,  and  to  bring  his  offspring  and  all  of  his 
kindred  to  be  ground  to  the  earth  by  those  whose  fathers 
Joseph  had  saved  from  the  horrors  of  death  by  starvation. 
The  Egyptians  made  the  children  of  Israel  to  serve  with  rigor ; 
and  they  made  their  lives  bitter  with  hard  bondage.  Ex.  1 :13 
But  even  this  was  not  the  worst.  The  command  went  forth 
from  Pharaoh,  "Every  son  that  is  born  shall  ye  cast  into  the 
river."  Ex.  1 :22.  But  at  length  God  heard  their  groaning, 
and  God  remembered  his  covenant  with  their  fathers  (Ex. 
2 :24),  and  he  prepared  to  deliver  them  from  their  bondage,  and 
to  bring  them  into  the  land  which  he  had  promised  to  their 
fathers.  He  calls  upon  the  tyrant  to  let  his  people  go;  and 
when  he  refuses,  plague  after  plague  is  sent  to  enforce  the  call ; 
but  all  in  vain,  though  there  is  many  a  promise  of  compliance 
given.  At  last  Moses  stands  before  Pharaoh  to  utter  this  ter- 
rible message  (Ex.  11 :4,  5)  :  "Thus  saith  the  Lord,  About  mid- 
night will  I  go  out  into  the  midst  of  Egypt,  and  all  the  first-born 
in  the  land  of  Egypt  shall  die,  from  the  first-born  of  Pharaoh, 
that  sitteth  upon  his  throne,  even  to  the  first-born  of  the  maid 
servant  that  is  behind  the  mill.  And  there  shall  be  a  great  cry 
throughout  all  the  land  of  Egypt,  such  as  there  was  none  like 
it,  nor  shall  be  like  it  any  more." 

As  a  test  of  their  obedience,  and  to  present  more  clearly  to 
their  minds  a  greater  deliverance,  a  deliverance  from  the  second 
death,  from  a  more  cruel  bondage  than  that  of  Pharaoh,  God 
instituted  the  passover.  He  directs  a  lamb  to  be  taken  for  each 
household,  a  lamb  without  blemish ;  this  must  be  slain,  and  the 
blood  applied  to  the  door-posts  of  the  houses.  He  promises: 
"When  I  see  the  blood,  I  will  pass  over  you,  and  the  plague 
shall  not  be  upon  you  to  destroy  you,  when  I  smite  the  land  of 
Egypt."  Num.  9  :13 :  "The  man  that  forbeareth  to  keep  the 
passover,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  his  people ;  that 
man  shall  bear  his  sin."  The  children  of  Israel,  who  had  been 
summoned  to  hear  the  Lord's  commands,  (Ex.  12:28),  went 
away,  and  did  as  the  Lord  had  commanded.  "And  it  came  to 
pass  that  at  midnight  the  Lord  smote  all  the  first-born  in  the 
land  of  Egypt,  from  the  first-born  of  Pharaoh  that  sat  upon 
his  throne,  unto  the  first-born  of  the  captive  that  was  in  the 
dungeon.    And  there  was  a  great  cry  in  Egypt;  for  there  was 


204 


DR.  JAMES  WOOD  ROW. 


not  a  house  where  there  was  not  one  dead."  But  no  Israelite 
was  smitten.  They  escape  from  their  bondage,  and  hasten 
away  towards  the  promised  land.  But  though  this  is  so  near, 
yet  they  do  not  at  once  enter  it:  the  Lord  leads  them  by  a 
weary  way,  preparing  them  for  its  enjoyment,  until  at  length 
they  can  sing:  "The  Lord  brought  us  forth  out  of  Egypt, 
with  a  mighty  hand,  and  with  an  outstretched  arm,  and  with 
great  terribleness,  and  with  signs,  and  with  wonders :  and  he 
hath  brought  us  into  this  place,  and  hath  given  us  this  land, 
even  a  land  that  floweth  with  milk  and  honey."    Deut.  26  :8,  9. 

We  could  have  no  more  vivid  representation  of  God's  plan 
of  salvation  than  this.  We  have  fallen  from  the  rank  of  those 
in  the  image  of  God  into  the  most  abject  bondage  to  sin :  Satan 
leads  us  captive  at  his  will.  But  God  would  deliver  us  from 
this  state.  To  effect  this,  a  substitute  must  die;  for  we  have 
sinned,  and  God  must,  to  vindicate  his  own  truth,  punish  our  sin 
with  death.  One  who  is  innocent  indeed  and  without  blemish 
is  chosen;  he  is  brought  as  a  lamb  to  the  slaughter;  he  is  cut 
off,  but  not  for  himself ;  his  blood  which  cleanseth  from  all  sin 
is  applied  to  his  people  and  they  are  saved;  the  destroyer 
passes  over  them,  while  smiting  and  judgment  and  plague  and 
destruction  come  upon  all  to  whom  that  precious  blood  is  not 
applied.  Those  who  are  saved  by  this  blood  are  not  introduced 
at  once  into  the  heavenly  Canaan ;  but  often  a  weary  way  in  the 
wilderness  is  first  to  be  traversed,  under  the  guidance  of  the 
heavenly  leader  who  will  guide  them  into  all  truth,  and  bring 
them  at  last  to  the  rest  that  remaineth  for  the  people  of  God, 
the  Canaan  above,  where  holiness  and  joy  abound  in  unlimited 
fulness.  This  is  he  to  whom  the  fearless  preacher  of  repent- 
ance points,  when  he  cries  out:  "Behold  the  Lamb  of  God, 
which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world."  And  the  next  day 
he  repeats  the  urgent  call  (as  in  the  text)  to  two  of  his  disci- 
ples :  "Behold  the  Lamb  of  God."  His  design  in  thus  repeat- 
edly and  earnestly  directing  attention  to  him  is  seen  in  the 
effect  it  produced:  his  disciples  left  him,  and  followed  the 
Lamb. 

Let  us  now  behold  him  as  he  is  more  clearly  made  known  to 
us  in  the  subsequent  narrative  of  his  life; — and  may  God 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


205 


enable  us  so  to  see  him  that  we,  too,  may  all  become  followers 
of  the  Lamb. 

Who  is  he,  that  we  should  follow  him,  that  we  should  trust 
him  as  one  able  to  take  away  the  sin  of  the  world? 

He  is  God  with  us,  the  one  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  for- 
ever ;  he  is  the  Lord  our  Righteousness ;  it  was  by  him  that  all 
things  were  made.  God  himself  addresses  him  thus :  "Thy 
throne,  O  God,  is  forever  and  ever;  a  sceptre  of  righteousness 
is  the  sceptre  of  thy  kingdom."  Being  in  the  form  of  God,  he 
thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God :  he  is  the  brightness 
of  his  glory,  the  express  image  of  his  person ;  in  him  dwelleth 
all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily ;  he  upholds  all  things  by 
the  word  of  his  power ;  he  sits  on  the  right  hand  of  the  majesty 
on  high :  therefore  he  is  able  to  save  them  to  the  uttermost  that 
come  unto  God  by  him,  seeing  he  ever  liveth  to  make  interces- 
sion for  them.  Since  he  is  equal  with  God,  since  he  is  God 
himself,  we  may  follow  him  with  the  firm  assurance  that  he 
can  lead  us  whithersoever  he  will. 

But  if  he  is  God,  how  can  he  be  our  substitute,  how  can  he 
suffer  the  penalty  of  death  for  us?  As  God,  he  cannot;  but 
he  is  not  God  alone, — he  is  the  man  Christ  Jesus  as  well.  The 
Word  that  was  in  the  beginning  with  God  and  was  God,  was 
made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us :  he  was  God  manifest  in  the 
flesh ;  he  had  a  human  soul  which  could  be  and  was  exceeding 
sorrowful,  even  unto  death;  he  could  suffer  and  die  upon  the 
cross.  The  nature  that  had  sinned  was  that  which  suffered: 
the  substitution  in  this  respect  was  complete.  The  death  to 
which  he  was  subjected  was  not  eternal,  as  ours  must  have 
been;  for  his  Godhead  imparted  infinite  value  to  his  human 
sufferings ;  and  thus  what  he  underwent  was  a  full  equivalent 
of  all  the  penalties  merited  by  all  who  would  follow  him  and 
accept  the  salvation  which  he  purchased  with  his  blood.  Heb. 
2  :14.  Forasmuch  as  we  are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he 
also  himself  likewise  partook  of  the  same,  that  through  death 
he  might  destroy  him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the 
devil.  He  took  not  on  him  the  nature  of  angels,  but  of  the 
seed  of  Abraham.  Having  our  nature  he  knows  how  to  sym- 
pathise with  us,  too.  We  have  not  an  high  priest  which  cannot 
be  touched  with  the  feeling  of  our  infirmities,  but  was  in  all 


206 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


points  tempted  as  we  are,  yet  without  sin.  (Heb.  4 :15).  How 
is  our  boldness  in  approaching  him  increased,  when  we  think 
that  he  is  of  the  same  nature  with  ourselves,  when  he  calls  us 
his  brethren!  Truly  we  may  come  boldly  unto  the  throne  of 
grace,  that  we  may  obtain  mercy,  and  find  grace  to  help  in  time 
of  need.    (Heb.  4:16). 

Thus  we  see  everything  combined  in  Jesus  necessary  to  make 
him  perfect  as  the  Captain  of  our  salvation :  he  is  God,  able  to 
save  to  the  uttermost ;  he  is  man,  that  he  may  endure  the  wrath 
of  God  due  to  us  for  sin.  Now  may  God  be  just  and  the  justi- 
fier  of  all  that  believe  in  Jesus.  But  if  we  continue  to  behold 
him,  new  attractions  will  be  constantly  unfolded  to  our  view. 
Surely  if  anything  can  attract  us  to  another,  it  is  the  manifes- 
tation of  love  for  us ;  the  constant  bestowal  of  acts  of  kindness 
upon  us.  And  if  that  love  leads  to  sacrifices  of  comfort  and 
property  and  even  of  life  for  us,  would  we  not  reproach  our- 
selves as  monsters  of  ingratitude,  if  we  felt  coldly  towards  such 
a  friend?  Such  is  the  love  of  Christ  towards  us.  Not  to 
speak  of  him  as  our  Creator  and  Preserver,  see  him  leaving  the 
throne  of  heaven  to  be  the  object  of  contempt  on  earth;  though 
possessor  of  all  things,  for  our  sakes  becoming  poor,  that  we 
through  his  poverty  may  be  rich ;  and  when  the  stroke  of  divine 
wrath  is  about  to  fall  upon  us,  he  interposes  and  bears  it  for  us. 
Shall  we  not  for  such  infinite  love  give  him  in  turn  all  the 
intensest  love  of  our  hearts,  and  follow  him  whithersoever  he 
calls?  His  love  and  compassion  appear  not  only  in  this  great 
act  of  having  come  to  save  the  world,  but  they  were  daily 
exhibited  wherever  he  went,  as  he  wandered  about  during  the 
few  years  before  his  death.  In  travelling,  as  he  approaches  a 
city,  he  meets  a  funeral  procession  bearing  to  the  tomb  the 
remains  of  an  only  son  of  a  widowed  mother.  He  has  com- 
passion on  the  weeping  mother  ;  he  bids  her  weep  no  more ;  and 
gladdens  her  heart  and  changes  her  tears  to  tears  of  joy  by 
restoring  her  son  to  her  alive,  to  be  longer  to  her  the  stay  of  her 
age  and  her  comfort  in  her  loneliness. 

See  him  again — at  that  grave  in  Bethany.  See  his  sympa- 
thetic nature  there,  and  his  willingness  to  remove  unhappiness, 
too.  As  the  sisters  are  weeping  for  their  brother,  and  neigh- 
bors for  their  friend,  Jesus  is  troubled  in  spirit,  and  soon  he 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


207 


weeps,  too,  with  the  sorrowful  group.  But  it  is  not  long  before 
the  dead  brother  and  friend  comes  forth  alive  from  the  grave, 
in  obedience  to  the  voice  of  Jesus.  What  love  and  compassion 
there !  And  see  him  as  he  approaches  that  city,  whose  inhabit- 
ants would  soon  be  clamoring  for  his  blood.  When  he  was 
come  near,  (Luke  19  :41),  he  beheld  the  city,  and  wept  over  it ; 
lamenting  their  perversity  and  blindness  in  rejecting  the  salva- 
tion he  came  to  offer,  and  their  dreadful  doom  in  consequence. 
Wherever  he  went,  the  blind  saw,  the  lame  walked,  the  lepers 
were  cleansed,  the  deaf  heard,  the  dead  were  raised,  and  far 
the  best  of  all,  to  the  poor  the  gospel  was  preached.  (Luke 
7:22.) 

Such  are  some  of  the  traits  of  the  Redeemer's  character. 
Now  what  think  ye  of  him  ?  Are  you  ready  at  once  to  leave  all 
and  follow  him,  or  has  he  to  you  no  form  or  comeliness ;  and 
when  you  see  him,  is  there  no  beauty  that  you  should  desire 
him?  Surely  this  cannot  be  so,  after  what  we  have  seen  of 
him.  But  do  you  fear  that  if  you  attempt  to  follow  him,  he 
will  turn  coldly  away  from  you  ?  You  cannot  think  this,  when 
you  reflect  upon  the  love  and  compassion  he  has  shown.  In 
the  name  of  my  Master  and  by  his  authority,  I  invite  you  to 
come  and  follow  him.  He  has  pledged  his  word  that  he  will 
receive  you :  he  has  said,  Him  that  cometh  to  me  I  will  in  no 
wise  cast  out. 

Enough  has  already  been  said  to  show  that  it  is  our  highest 
interest  and  duty  and  should  be  our  greatest  delight  to  follow 
him.  It  would  be  enough  to  be  permitted  to  contemplate  with 
unceasing  admiration  the  beauties  and  glories  of  his  character. 
To  be  permitted  to  love  him,  and  to  trust  confidently  in  him  as 
having  suffered  for  us,  would  bring  with  it  reward  enough, 
even  while  he  is  presented  to  the  eye  of  faith  alone.  But  he 
will  give  us  much  more.  Hear  what  he  says :  "If  any  man 
serve  me,  let  him  follow  me ;  and  where  I  am,  there  shall  also 
my  servant  be;  if  any  man  serve  me,  him  will  my  Father 
honor. "  We  will  not  be  obliged  always  to  rest  contented  with 
a  distant  view  of  him.  We  shall  see  him  as  he  is,  and  shall 
become  like  him ;  his  Father  will  honor  us,  and  what  honor : 
he  will  call  us  sons  of  God ;  and  the  Lamb  will  call  us  his 
brethren,  no  longer  his  servants,  though  it  would  be  honor 


208 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


enough  to  be  one  of  his  lowest  servants.  Even  now  he  has 
gone  to  prepare  a  place  for  us,  and  he  will  come  again,  and 
receive  us  to  himself.  He  is  now  at  the  right  hand  of  God 
making  intercession  for  us,  if  we  are  his  followers;  and  he 
sends  us  the  Comforter  to  bring  all  his  words  to  our  remem- 
brance. He  will  support  us  in  our  pilgrimage,  however  weary 
it  may  be ;  he  will  not  suffer  us  to  be  tempted  above  that  we  are 
able;  in  all  things  we  shall  be  more  than  conquerors  through 
him  that  loves  us.    If  we  suffer,  we  shall  also  reign  with  him. 

But  if  these  hopes  are  not  yours,  if  you  will  not  follow  him, 
whom  will  you  follow?  Rather,  whom  do  you  follow?  If 
you  dream  of  independence,  you  deceive  yourselves :  followers 
you  must  be ;  and  if  not  of  the  Lamb  of  God,  it  must  be  of  him 
who  has  been  conquered  by  the  Lamb.  Can  it  be  possible  that 
you  will  deliberately  choose  the  service  of  the  devil?  What  is 
there  in  his  character  to  attract  you  ?  Do  you  find  pleasures  in 
his  service?  Seeming  pleasures  you  may  find  for  a  few  brief 
moments ;  but  when  those  are  gone,  what  do  you  expect  even 
in  this  life?  And  what  reward  will  he  give  you  in  the  world  to 
come?  I  beseech  you  consider  these  questions,  before  you 
determine  to  continue  to  follow  the  god  of  this  world.  And 
awake  from  the  vain  delusion  that  you  are  freemen,  and  never 
were  in  bondage  to  any.  Leave  the  cruel  task-master,  and 
enter  his  service  who  will  make  you  free  indeed;  free  as  the 
heirs  of  God. 

We  have  been  denied  thus  far  the  privilege,  which  John's 
disciples  enjoyed,  of  beholding  the  Lamb  with  our  bodily  eyes. 
But  there  is  a  time  coming,  how  distant  we  cannot  tell,  certainly 
not  very  distant  for  any  of  us,  when  we  shall  see  for  ourselves, 
and  our  eyes  shall  behold,  and  not  another  (Job  19  :27).  With 
what  feelings  shall  we  then  behold  him?  This  is  a  question 
that  must  be  decided  now; — then  it  will  be  too  late.  It  will 
not  be  our  privilege  then  to  choose  whether  or  not  we  will 
follow  him.  The  question  will  then  have  been  settled  forever. 
Behold  he  cometh  with  clouds ;  and  every  eye  shall  see  him,  and 
they  also  which  pierced  him ;  and  all  kindreds  of  the  earth  shall 
wail  because  of  him.  Even  so,  amen.  Shall  we  wail  because 
of  him,  too?  Or  shall  we  then  say,  Unto  him  that  loved  us, 
and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood,  and  hath  made 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


209 


us  kings  and  priests  unto  God  and  his  Father,  to  him  be  glory 
and  dominion  forever  and  ever.  Amen.  This  is  the  alterna- 
tive presented  to  us.    Which  will  you  choose? 

Yes,  we  shall  see  him,  when  he  comes  in  his  glory,  and  all 
the  holy  angels  with  him;  when  he  sits  on  the  throne  of  his 
glory  to  judge  the  world.  We  shall  see  the  very  Jesus,  the 
very  Lamb  of  God  whom  John  pointed  out,  but  with  the  addi- 
tion of  those  cruel  marks  which  show  that  he  was  slain.  If 
you  follow  him  now,  what  glory,  what  joy  will  be  yours  then. 
You  will  be  of  that  great  multitude,  which  no  man  can  number, 
of  all  nations  and  kindred  and  people  and  tongues,  standing 
before  the  throne  and  before  the  Lamb,  clothed  with  white  robes, 
and  palms  in  their  hands,  crying  with  loud  voice,  Salvation 
to  our  God  which  sitteth  upon  the  throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb. 
(Rev.  7:9.).  And  you  will  hear  the  response  of  the  angels 
and  the  elders  and  the  four  living  creatures :  Amen.  Blessing 
and  glory  and  wisdom,  and  thanksgiving  and  honor  and  power 
and  might  be  unto  our  God  forever  and  ever.  Amen.  You 
will  have  robes  washed  and  made  white  in  the  blood  of  the 
Lamb.  You  will  be  before  the  throne  of  God  and  serve  him 
day  and  night  in  his  temple,  and  he  that  sitteth  on  the  throne 
will  dwell  among  you.  You  shall  hunger  no  more,  neither 
thirst  any  more,  neither  shall  the  sun  light  on  you,  nor  any  heat. 
For  the  Lamb  which  is  in  the  midst  of  the  throne  shall  feed 
you,  and  shall  lead  you  unto  living  fountains  of  waters;  and 
God  shall  wipe  away  all  tears  from  your  eyes.  And  again  as 
you  behold  the  Lamb,  you  will  sing,  Worthy  is  the  Lamb  that 
was  slain  to  receive  power  and  riches  and  wisdom  and  strength 
and  honor  and  glory  and  blessing.  (Rev.  5:12).  Alleluia: 
for  the  Lord  God  omnipotent  reigneth.  Let  us  be  glad  and 
rejoice,  and  give  honor  to  him;  for  the  marriage  of  the  Lamb 
is  come,  and  his  wife  hath  made  herself  ready,  arrayed  in  the 
righteousness  of  the  saints.  Blessed  are  they  which  are  called 
unto  the  marriage  supper  of  the  Lamb.  (Rev.  19:6  to  9).  I 
now  call  you,  each  and  all,  to  this  marriage  supper.  Would 
that  I  could  compel  you  to  come.  May  God  send  his  Spirit  to 
call  you  so  that  you  will  come :  and  then  all  these  glories  shall 
be  yours. 


14 — w 


210 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


But  if  you  neglect  all  invitations,  you  too  will  see  the  Lamb. 
But  how  will  you  receive  him?  Along  with  the  kings  of  the 
earth  and  the  great  men  and  the  rich  men  and  the  chief  cap- 
tains and  the  mighty  men  and  every  bondman  and  every 
freeman,  you  will  hide  yourselves  in  the  dens  and  in  the  rocks 
of  the  mountains ;  and  you  will  say  to  the  rocks  and  the  moun- 
tains, Fall  on  us  and  hide  us  from  the  face  of  him  that  sitteth 
on  the  throne,  and  from  the  wrath  of  the  Lamb ;  for  the  great 
day  of  his  wrath  is  come,  and  who  shall  be  able  to  stand? 
(Rev.  6 :15.).  And  you — no;  Merciful  God,  grant  that  it  may 
be  none  of  these  now  before  thee ! — those  who  scorn  the  invi- 
tation shall  drink  of  the  wine  of  the  wrath  of  God,  which  is 
poured  out  without  mixture  into  the  cup  of  his  indignation; 
and  they  shall  be  tormented  with  fire  and  brimstone  in  the 
presence  of  the  holy  angels  and  in  the  presence  of  the  Lamb; 
and  the  smoke  of  their  torment  ascendeth  up  forever  and  ever. 
(Rev.  14:10,  11).  May  God  in  his  mercy  avert  from  us  this 
fate;  and  grant  us  all  the  power  and  the  will  to  follow  the 
Lamb  now,  that  we  may  sit  with  him  at  his  marriage  supper. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


211 


Sermon. 


Acts  4:12.  Neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other,  for  there  is  none 
other  name  under  heaven  given  among  men,  whereby  we  must  be  saved. 

The  times  when  these  words  were  uttered  were  strange  and 
stirring.  A  few  years  before,  an  obscure  man  by  his  words 
and  works  had  attracted  to  himself  the  eager  attention  of  all 
the  inhabitants  of  Judea  and  Samaria  and  Galilee.  At  first  he 
was  sneered  at  as  the  carpenter's  son,  himself  a  carpenter;  and 
when  he  undertook  to  instruct  the  people,  it  was  scornfully 
asked  :  '"'How  knoweth  this  man  letters,  having  never  learned?" 
He  has  never  sat  at  the  feet  of  Gamaliel  or  any  other  of  the 
learned  teachers  of  the  law;  by  what  means  can  he  teach  us? 
But  though  he  was  thus  obscure  in  origin,  though  he  had  not 
attended  the  schools  of  the  learned,  though  he  was  so  destitute 
of  all  outward  means  of  attracting  disciples  that  he  could  with 
truth  say,  "Foxes  have  holes,  and  birds  of  the  air  have  nests ; 
but  the  Son  of  man  hath  not  where  to  lay  his  head,"  yet  such 
was  the  weight  of  his  words,  speaking  as  man  never  spake 
before  as  he  taught  in  the  synagogue,  in  the  temple,  to  the 
single  passer-by  as  he  waited  at  the  well,  to  the  assembled 
thousands  by  the  sea-side  or  in  the  deserts,  that  the  whole  land 
was  soon  filled  with  his  fame.  He  claimed  to  be  a  king;  and 
the  excited  and  admiring  people  were  ready  to  take  him  by 
force  and  make  him  their  king.  His  immediate  companions 
and  followers  were  full  of  eager  expectations  of  high  office  in 
the  kingdom  about  to  be  established;  they  were  even  contend- 
ing with  one  another  who  should  sit  nearest  the  throne,  who 
should  be  prime  minister  under  their  royal  master.  But  their 
ambitious  hopes  are  soon  crushed,  when  their  Master  is  seized 
and  brought  as  a  criminal  before  the  highest  court  of  the 
country,  and  when  sentenced  to  death  there  before  the  Roman 
governor,  by  whom  the  sentence  is  confirmed.  The  chief  of 
his  followers,  the  boasting  Peter,  who  had  indignantly  replied 
the  night  before,  when  it  was  asserted  that  he  would  forsake 
and  deny  his  Master,  "Though  all  men  shall  be  offended 
because  of  thee,  yet  will  I  not  deny  thee,"  followed  him  afar 
of?,  as  a  careless  spectator ;  and  then,  coward-like,  basely  denied 


212 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


that  he  ever  knew  him,  adding  to  his  guilt  the  shame  by  repeat- 
ing the  denial  with  cursing  and  oaths. 

But  again  there  is  a  change.  The  crucified  Jesus  breaks  the 
bands  of  death;  he  re-appears  to  his  dejected  disciples;  he 
instructs  them  more  clearly  as  to  the  spiritual  nature  of  his 
kingdom ;  he  revives  their  crushed  hopes ;  he  leads  them  again 
to  expect  high  office  in  his  kingdom,  far  higher  than  it  had 
entered  into  their  heads  to  conceive  before.  They  now  expect 
the  gaudy  trappings  of  earthly  office  no  longer,  but  to  be  ambas- 
sadors from  the  Court  of  heaven  to  rebellious  men,  and  as  their 
future  reward  twelve  thrones  on  which  they  shall  sit  judging 
the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.  After  waiting  a  few  days  for 
authority  from  on  high,  they  go  forth  to  discharge  their  duties. 
The  cowardly  boaster  is  coward  no  longer :  fifty  days  after  he 
had  in  so  dastardly  a  manner  shrunk  from  the  face  of  a  girl, 
he  stands  fearlessly  before  the  multitudes  who  had  imbued  their 
hands  in  his  Master's  blood,  and  vindicating  his  character, 
charges  them  with  having  with  wicked  hands  crucified  and 
slain  him.  In  the  very  temple  he  reiterates  the  charge,  when  at 
length  he  is  himself  apprehended  by  the  chief  perpetrators  of 
the  judicial  murder,  maddened  by  the  accusation.  And  he  is 
now  brought  before  the  same  tribunal  which  had  condemned 
his  innocent  Lord  to  the  cross.  But  what  is  the  crime  for 
which  he  is  indicted?  They  charge  him  with  having  given 
strength  to  a  man  who  had  been  lame  from  his  birth.  Strange 
crime!  Strange  tribunal  of  justice!  Listen  to  Peter's  reply: 
"Ye  rulers  of  the  people,  and  elders  of  Israel,  if  we  this  day  be 
examined  of  the  good  deed  done  to  the  impotent  man,  by  what 
means  he  is  made  whole/'  if  it  be  possible  that  I  am  arraigned 
here  for  this  as  a  crime ;  if  before  this  court  it  is  regarded  as  a 
misdeed  to  remove  human  suffering,  still  I  refuse  not  to 
answer.  "Be  it  known  unto  you  all,  and  to  all  the  people  of 
Israel,  that  by  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Nazareth,  whom  ye" 
by  a  sentence  of  your  court,  "crucified,  whom  God,"  who 
judgeth  not  as  ye  judge,  but  who  will  reverse  many  of  your 
decisions,  "whom  God  raised  from  the  dead,  even  by  him  doth 
this  man  stand  here  before  you  whole."  And  then  forgetting 
that  he  is  the  criminal,  he  arraigns  his  judges  at  a  higher  bar. 
They  had  been  constituted  builders  of  the  temple  of  God ;  and 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


213 


yet  so  grossly  had  they  neglected  their  duty  that  they  had 
rejected  with  contempt  the  chief  corner-stone.  "This  is  the 
stone  which  was  set  at  nought  of  you  builders,  which  is  become 
the  head  of  the  corner."  And  then  he  directs  their  attention 
away  from  the  salvation  from  bodily  infirmity  which  he  had 
brought  to  the  lame  man  through  the  name  of  Jesus  to  that 
salvation  from  sin  and  eternal  death  which  they  and  you  and 
all  men  need,  and  warns  them  of  the  folly  of  seeking  it  as  they 
were.  "Neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other,  for  there  is 
none  other  name  under  heaven  given  among  men  whereby  we 
must  be  saved." 

Salvation  is  the  chief  thing  needed  of  all  mankind,  for  all 
have  sinned,  and  "the  wages  of  sin  is  death."  No  one  will 
pretend  that,  in  lands  enlightened  by  the  word  of  God,  a  single 
human  being  exists  who  perfectly  obeys  the  law  of  God  as  far 
as  he  knows  it.  And  whoever  fails  to  do  this  is  constantly 
exposed  to  the  death — temporal  and  eternal — due  to  the  sin- 
ning soul.  And  the  most  ignorant  heathen,  too,  needs  salva- 
tion. For  though  he  has  not  the  light  which  shines  on  you  and 
me,  the  "law  is  written  in  his  heart ;"  and  when  God  renders 
to  every  man  according  to  his  deeds,  then  indignation  and 
wrath,  tribulation  and  anguish  will  be  upon  every  soul  of  man 
that  doeth  evil,  of  the  heathen  for  violating  his  law,  as  well  as 
of  the  Bible  reader,  for  his  more  inexcusable  violations.  "It 
is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  living  God." 
And  all  mankind  are  conscious  that  they  are  exposed  to  some 
terrible  evil  in  consequence  of  their  guilt,  though  they  may  be 
wholly  ignorant  of  their  real  relations  to  the  true  God,  and 
even  of  his  existence ;  and  are  putting  forth  strenuous  efforts 
to  escape.  Those  rulers  and  elders,  before  whom  Peter  was 
standing,  were  spending  their  lives  in  seeking  for  salvation. 
What  other  end  had  their  daily  sacrifices,  their  costly  temple 
service,  their  tithes  and  offerings,  their  zealous  observance  of 
the  traditions  of  the  elders?  And  what  seeks  the  Moslem  by 
his  ablutions  and  prostrations?  Or  the  idolater  by  his  weary 
pilgrimages  to  the  shrine  of  his  god,  and  the  abominable  rites 
by  which  he  seeks  to  honor  the  workmanship  of  his  own  hands  ? 
The  whole  human  race  is  guilty  before  God,  and  is  conscious  of 
it,  too ;  and  hence  the  universal  ceaseless  toiling  after  some  way 


214 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


of  escape.  If  there  are  any  who  do  not  participate  outwardly 
in  this,  strange  to  say  they  are  to  be  found  in  our  own  enlight- 
ened so-called  Christian  lands.  These  know  too  well  the  folly 
of  seeking  for  salvation  as  the  heathen  do,  and  are  yet  too 
proud  to  seek  it  as  they  know  they  must ;  and  therefore  they  try 
to  persuade  themselves  and  others  that  they  are  ready  to  brave 
the  anger  of  the  Almighty.  But  let  danger,  let  death  approach, 
and  often  their  terror  shows  that  the  desire  for  salvation  is  the 
deepest  feeling  in  their  hearts,  too,  startled,  as  they  are,  by  that 
"conscience  that  makes  cowards  of  us  all." 

Since  all  are  thus  striving  to  escape  from  the  wrath  to  come, 
it  is  not  strange  that  many  names  should  have  been  proposed. 
Let  us  consider  a  few  of  these,  and  see  what  promise  of  success 
they  afford. 

The  Jewish  chief  priests  believed  that  they  were  certainly  in 
the  right  way.  They  most  scrupulously  kept  the  law  of  God, 
as  to  externals  at  least.  They  offered  all  the  sacrifices  which 
he  had  commanded ;  they  observed  all  the  feasts ;  they  thought 
they  could  rightfully  claim  salvation  from  God.  But  they 
foolishly  trusted  that  their  sins  could  be  washed  away  by  the 
blood  of  the  victims  they  killed,  and  failed  to  look  beyond 
these  to  the  Lamb  of  God,  whose  blood  alone  can  wash  away 
sin.  They  trusted  in  their  own  observance  of  the  letter  of  the 
law,  in  their  own  righteousness,  and  failed  to  rely  on  the 
righteousness  of  Christ,  which  alone  is  perfect  in  God's  sight. 

Here,  too,  is  the  defect  of  sacrifices  universally,  trusted  in 
by  millions  in  our  own  day,  as  well  as  in  all  past  ages,  among 
the  heathen,  whether  the  victims  are  human  beings  or  beasts  of 
the  field.  The  only  real  value  any  sacrifice  ever  had  was  as  a 
type  of  that  offered  on  Calvary.  Vain  is  the  hope  that  the 
sign  has  any  value  in  itself.  And  yet  the  thing  signified  is 
utterly  unknown  and  disregarded  by  the  multitudes  who  put 
their  whole  trust  in  the  blood  of  the  bullocks  and  lambs  which 
they  shed,  or  who  rely  upon  giving  the  fruit  of  the  body  for  the 
sin  of  the  soul. 

But  these  are  names  in  which  no  one  in  our  land  is  likely  to 
rely.  There  are  others,  however,  which  are  equally  vain,  lead- 
ing to  delusive  hopes  multitudes  with  whom  we  mingle  every 
day. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


215 


There  is  the  name  morality.  You  are  told  that  if  your  con- 
duct is  strictly  moral,  you  are  safe.  If  you  are  just  in  your 
dealings  with  your  fellow-men,  if  you  are  a  law-abiding  citizen, 
if  you  are  benevolent,  embracing  every  opportunity  to  relieve 
the  distressed,  to  comfort  the  wretched,  then  God  will  have 
nothing  to  punish  you  for ;  or  if  you  fail  in  some  points  to  keep 
his  law,  these  are  slight  imperfections  which  so  merciful  a 
Being  will  overlook.  This,  as  we  have  seen,  is  a  terrible  delu- 
sion. God  requires  us  to  love  him  with  all  the  heart  and  soul 
and  strength  and  mind.  This  is  the  first  and  great  command- 
ment. Even  if  we  keep  the  second  perfectly,  and  really  love 
our  neighbor  as  ourselves,  if  we  spend  all  our  time  and  means 
in  promoting  the  welfare  of  others,  yet  how  can  we  believe 
that  God  will  accept  this  less  service  for  the  greater,  which  we 
owe  him?  Do  we  feel  and  act  thus  toward  our  servants? 
When  we  require  a  particular  service  from  them,  do  we  regard 
it  as  a  sufficient  reason  for  disobedience  that  they  have  been 
providing  kindly  for  the  wants  of  their  fellow-servants  ?  And 
what  reason  have  we  to  believe  that  our  Master  in  heaven  will 
be  satisfied  with  us,  if  we  fail  to  love  and  obey  him,  if  we 
scorn  and  neglect  all  our  duties  towards  himself,  however 
earnest  we  may  be  in  benefiting  our  fellow-servants?  Rest 
assured:  the  belief  that  God  will  allow  himself  to  be  trifled 
with  in  this  way  is  utterly  groundless. 

Then  the  name  Sincerity  is  set  before  us.  God  will  forgive 
our  sins,  provided  we  are  honest  and  sincere  in  our  belief, 
whatever  it  is  that  we  believe.  Thus  the  falsehood  is  again 
presented  to  us.  God  is  too  merciful  to  punish  a  sincere 
believer  for  his  mistakes,  we  are  told.  It  is  a  matter  of  indif- 
ference, then,  whether  we  believe  in  truth  or  in  error?  Will 
our  sincerity  change  the  laws  of  God?  Was  Saul  of  Tarsus 
doing  God  service  when  persecuting  the  saints,  because  he 
honestly  thought  he  was?  If  you  swallow  poison,  honestly 
believing  it  to  be  wholesome  food,  will  your  honesty  save  your 
life?  If  you  plant  seed  in  a  sterile  soil,  sincerely  believing  it 
to  be  fertile,  will  your  sincerity  cause  an  abundant  crop  to 
spring  up  and  mature  ?  And  if  your  sincerity  will  not  save  you 
from  death  or  disappointment  in  these  cases,  can  you  be  willing 
to  trust  your  soul's  salvation  to  that  which  fails  to  endure  the 


216 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


faintest  glimmer  of  reason?  And  if  we  bring  this  opinion  to 
the  test  of  revelation,  it  fares  no  better.  Ask  revelation 
whether  sincere  belief  in  error  will  save  the  soul,  and  the 
answer  is  returned  in  unmistakable  language :  "Neither  is  there 
salvation  in  any  other ;  for  there  is  none  other  name  under 
heaven  given  among  men  whereby  we  must  be  saved."  There 
is  nothing  in  this  inconsistent  with  God's  mercy.  He  will  not 
punish  anything  but  sin,  and  sin  implies  knowledge.  But  we 
have  already  seen  that  the  most  ignorant  pagan  does  not  come 
up  to  what  he  knows  or  may  know  to  be  his  duty.  Voluntary 
ignorance  is  no  excuse,  even  before  human  tribunals.  And  all 
who  seek  for  the  truth  in  lands  where  the  Gospel  is  preached 
will  certainly  find  it.  The  way  of  salvation  is  so  plain  that 
way-faring  men,  though  fools,  need  not  err  therein.  If  we 
neglect  it,  when  we  know  or  may  know  it,  what  can  remain 
to  us  but  a  certain  fearful  looking  for  of  judgment  and  fiery 
indignation  ? 

But  there  is  another  false  way,  not  often  named  by  those 
walking  in  it,  which  is  even  more  dangerous  than  any  of  these, 
since  it  seems  to  run  in  the  same  direction  with  the  true  one, 
and  since  you  may  be  walking  to  all  external  appearance  in  the 
true  path,  no  human  eye  being  able  to  see  that  you  are  in  the 
broad  way  that  leadeth  to  destruction.  In  this  way  in  the 
ancient  Church  walked  the  Pharisee,  who  could  stand  in  the 
presence  of  God  and  challenge  him  to  witness  that  he  was  no 
extortioner,  that  he  was  not  unjust  or  an  adulterer ;  and  that 
besides  keeping  the  law  as  it  regarded  his  fellow-men,  he  was 
not  less  scrupulous  in  his  more  direct  service  of  God,  for  he 
fasted  twice  in  the  week,  far  oftener  than  God  had  commanded, 
and  gave  tithes  of  all  he  possessed  into  the  treasury  of  the 
Lord.  Was  he  not  walking  in  the  ways  of  the  Lord?  And 
might  he  not  justly  claim  the  promise  of  life  given  to  all  who 
thus  walked?  Have  we  not  reason  to  fear  that  formalism  is 
rife  in  the  Church  to-day  as  well  as  in  the  time  of  our  Saviour  ? 
And  that  it  may  be  slaying  its  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands 
even  of  those  who  seem  to  be  most  exemplary  in  every  trait  of 
the  Christian  character? 

When  in  obedience  to  the  command,  we  examine  ourselves 
whether  we  be  in  the  faith,  we  are  conscious  of  our  liability  to 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


217 


self-deception,  of  the  danger  of  mistaking  vain  fancies  of  the 
unrenewed  heart  for  the  genuine  emotions  of  the  heart  filled 
with  love  to  God ;  and  hence  we  often  properly  pass  in  review 
our  actions  before  us,  to  see  whether  we  have  faith  by  showing 
our  works.  If  during  such  an  examination  you  can  truly  say 
that  you  have  defrauded  no  man,  that  you  are  just  in  all  your 
dealings  with  your  fellow-men,  that  you  are  punctual  in  the 
performance  of  all  your  more  purely  religious  duties,  that 
whoever  else  may  be  absent  from  the  sanctuary,  your  seat  is 
never  vacant,  that  you  are  always  at  the  prayer-meeting,  ready 
to  take  whatever  part  may  be  assigned  you  there,  that  in  your 
family  every  morning  and  evening  you  call  around  you  your 
children  and  servants  and  read  with  them  the  word  of  God  and 
go  with  them  to  the  throne  of  grace,  that  your  closet  can  bear 
witness  that  secret  prayer  is  never  neglected,  that  you  carefully 
keep  the  Sabbath,  engaging  in  no  labor  yourself  and  suffering 
none  of  your  dependents  to  do  so,  that  you  are  liberal  in  the 
support  of  your  pastor,  doing  what  you  can  to  wipe  out  the 
reproach  that  the  Church  of  Christ  is  more  niggardly  towards 
her  ministers  than  the  meanest  secular  Government  towards  its 
officers,  that  you,  like  David,  are  not  willing  to  ''dwell  in  an 
house  of  cedar,  while  the  ark  of  God  dwelleth  within  curtains," 
and  hence  you  have  built  the  house  of  God  in  a  style  that  cor- 
responds with  the  ability  God  has  given  you,  that  you  contri- 
bute largely  to  send  the  gospel  to  the  destitute  in  your  own 
and  in  foreign  lands,  that  you  never  say  to  the  naked  or  to  the 
destitute  of  daily  food,  "Depart  in  peace,  be  ye  warmed  and 
filled, "  while  you  give  them  not  what  is  needful  for  the  body, 
but  that  instead,  you  supply  bountifully  and  cheerfully  their 
wants,  that  whenever  you  can  you  sit  reverently  at  the  table  of 
the  Lord,  commemorating  his  dying  love ;  if  you  can  honestly 
say  all  this,  and  call  God  to  witness  that  it  is  true,  do  you  not 
feel  and  believe  that  however  others  may  be  wandering,  you  at 
least  are  on  the  highway  to  heaven?  that  God  can  have  no 
controversy  with  you?  And  yet  can  not  all  this  be  true,  while 
you,  like  the  Pharisee,  are  trusting  in  yourselves  that  you  are 
righteous,  while  you  are  going  about  to  establish  your  own 
righteousness,  without  having  submitted  yourselves  unto  the 
righteousness  of  God,  while  you  are  hoping  for  salvation  from 


218 


DR.  JAMES  W00DR0W. 


your  doing  the  deeds  of  the  law,  not  remembering  that  by  the 
deeds  of  the  law  there  shall  no  flesh  be  justified  in  his  sight? 

But,  though  there  are  so  many  false  ways  tempting  our  feet, 
there  is  one  that  will  not  lead  us  astray,  there  is  salvation  in 
one ;  one  name  has  been  given  among  men  whereby  we  may  be 
saved — must  be,  if  saved  at  all.  In  all  the  other  plans  there  is 
some  truth,  but  it  comes  short — fatally  short — of  the  whole 
truth.  We  must  observe  the  outward  ceremonies  of  the  law, 
as  the  persecutors  of  Peter  did.  We  must  carefully  do  unto 
others  as  we  would  have  others  do  unto  us,  as  the  moralist  does. 
We  must  be  honest  and  sincere  in  our  belief,  as  is  he  who  trusts 
in  his  sincerity.  We  must  do  all  that  the  formalist  does.  But 
if  we  stop  here,  we  are  undone.  We  fail  to  trust  in  the  only 
name  where  trust  will  avail.  We  fail  to  deny  ourselves,  as  our 
only  Saviour  has  commanded.  Far  from  denying  ourselves, 
our  only  hope  is  in  ourselves.  Instead  of  taking  up  the  cross, 
instead  of  relying  on  the  sufferings  and  death  and  the  infinite 
merit  which  it  symbolises,  we  hold  up  our  own  merits,  and  call 
our  works  so  painfully  done,  as  they  must  be  where  not 
prompted  by  faith  and  love,  our  cross.  Instead  of  following 
the  Sufferer  on  Calvary's  cross  to  the  fold  whither  he  would 
lead  us,  we  follow  a  phantom  of  our  own  creation  which  is 
surely  leading  us  down  to  hell. 

But  we  must  not  imagine  that  the  salvation  of  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ  of  Nazareth  is  merely  such  as  sinful  man,  con- 
scious of  his  deserts,  is  seeking  for  by  his  own  works.  It  is 
something  infinitely  higher  and  better  than  the  mere  remission 
of  the  punishment  due  to  the  sinner.  His  name  is  called  Jesus 
because  he  saves  his  people  from  their  sins.  By  the  application 
of  his  blood,  he  cleanses  the  depraved  soul  from  all  its  loath- 
some mass  of  corruption.  However  vile  we  may  have  been,  if 
we  are  of  his  chosen  people,  we  are  washed,  we  are  sanctified, 
we  are  justified  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  and  by  the  Spirit 
of  our  God,  whom  he  gives  us  to  dwell  with  us,  to  be  in  us,  to 
abide  with  us  forever.  We  are  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  our 
mind;  we  put  on  the  new  man,  which  after  God  is  created  in 
righteousness  and  true  holiness.  We  no  longer  are  bowed 
down  by  the  burden  of  sin.  We  no  longer  bewail  our  wretch- 
edness, crying,  "Who  shall  deliver  us  from  the  body  of  this 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


219 


death?"  But  we  each  can  exclaim  instead,  from  heart  over- 
flowing with  gratitude,  "I  thank  God  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord/' 

It  is  true  that  through  our  Saviour  we  secure  the  salvation 
which  the  world  is  seeking,  too.  He  has  suffered  for  our  sins, 
he  has  paid  the  penalty  for  us,  so  that  now  there  is  no  condem- 
nation to  us. 

And  then  besides  this  freedom  from  sin,  and  freedom  from 
its  consequences,  there  is  the  life  eternal.  Who  can  compre- 
hend the  full  meaning  of  these  words,  so  easily  uttered  ?  The 
salvation  which  Jesus  provides  for  us  includes  joint-heirship 
with  himself  of  all  the  glories  which  the  Eternal  Father  can 
bestow  upon  the  Prince  of  peace.  Best  of  all,  it  includes  like- 
ness to  himself  when  we  shall  see  him  as  he  is,  seated  on  the 
throne  of  his  glory. 

In  conclusion  let  me  ask,  which  of  these  various  names  will 
you  choose  ?  Will  you  put  your  trust  in  yourselves,  under  some 
disguise  or  other,  to  the  undoing  of  your  souls?  Or  will  you 
exercise  faith  in  him  in  whom  alone  there  is  salvation,  in  the 
only  name  under  heaven  given  among  men  whereby  you  must 
be  saved? 


220 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Sermon. 


Mark  8:36,  37.  For  what  shall  it  profit  a  man,  if  he  shall  gain  the 
whole  world  and  lose  his  own  soul?  Or  what  shall  a  man  give  in 
exchange  for  his  soul? 

The  blessed  Saviour  at  the  time  that  he  uttered  these  words 
had  been  engaged  in  his  public  ministry  for  two  years  or 
more.  By  his  numerous  miracles  of  healing  and  by  his  words 
of  wisdom  he  had  gained  general  favor  with  the  common  peo- 
ple, who  heard  him  gladly  and  bore  witness  that  he  did  all 
things  well.  He  had  not  yet  publicly  set  up  any  claim  which 
would  come  in  collision  with  their  prejudices,  and  hence  they 
were  ready  to  give  him  all  honor  as  Elijah;  or  as  the  mighty 
preacher  of  repentance,  risen  from  the  dead  and  now  mightier 
than  ever ;  or  as  one  of  the  illustrious  line  of  prophets,  to  whom 
they  looked  with  the  profoundest  reverence.  His  disciples 
through  their  spokesman,  Peter,  had  just  officially  professed  to 
receive  him  as  the  Christ,  the  Anointed  of  God.  He  confirms 
them  in  their  belief  that  he  is  so  indeed.  And  then — how 
strangely  it  sounds  to  them  after  this — he  tells  them  that  he 
must  suffer  many  things,  must  be  rejected,  must  be  killed.  The 
disciples  cannot  yet  understand  this  mystery,  this  seeming  con- 
tradiction, that  it  is  only  by  his  own  suffering  that  he  can 
procure  happiness  for  them,  that  only  by  his  death  can  he 
secure  for  them  eternal  life,  and  for  himself  the  glory  of 
reigning  as  the  Redeemer  of  man. 

Now  he  turns  from  the  little  group  of  his  immediate  follow- 
ers to  the  multitudes  near  by,  and  utters  to  them  a  similar 
paradox :  You  are  following  me  that  you  may  find  happiness 
and  life ;  if  you  would  succeed,  you  must  be  ready  to  renounce 
both  happiness  and  life.  "For  whosoever  will  save  his  life 
shall  lose  (or  destroy)  it;  but  whosoever  shall  lose  his  life  for 
my  sake  and  the  gospel's,  the  same  shall  save  it."  Then  he 
proposes  to  them  as  sensible,  rational  men  the  questions  of  the 
text. 

Let  us  now  consider  carefully  these  questions.  And  may  the 
Spirit  of  God  lead  each  one  to  give  a  wise  answer,  and  then  to 
gain  the  object  which  he  may  incline  us  to  prefer.    They  are 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


221 


surely  worthy  of  our  most  careful  consideration ;  especially 
since,  as  is  here  intimated,  exclusive  devotion  to  the  one  will 
involve  the  certain  loss  of  the  other. 

Here  is  held  up  before  us  the  world  with  its  many  sources  of 
pleasure,  ready  to  gratify  our  senses  in  every  way.  offering  us 
the  pleasures  of  the  intellect,  of  earthly  affection,  of  wealth,  of 
gratified  ambition,  of  power.  Let  us  contemplate  these  a  little 
while,  and  see  whether  they  are  worthy  of  supreme  regard. 

I  would  not  decry  or  undervalue  the  pleasures  which  the 
world  can  give.  They  are  neither  few  nor  worthless.  It  has 
pleased  God  so  to  adapt  the  things  of  this  world  to  our  nature 
that  we  receive  great  pleasure  from  everything  around  us. 
Even  the  pleasures  which  we  enjoy  in  common  with  the  lower 
animals  are  by  no  means  inconsiderable,  nor  are  they  to  be 
rejected,  unless  they  interfere  with  our  obtaining  that  which  is 
better. 

In  examining  what  attractions  the  world  presents,  let  us 
begin  with  those,  which,  though  universally  recognised  as  the 
lowest  pleasures,  receive  notwithstanding  so  large  a  share  of 
every  one's  attention.  Look  abroad  over  the  world.  Do  you 
not  see  that  the  greater  portion  of  our  race  show  by  their 
actions  that  they  regard  this  portion  of  the  world's  pleasures  as 
entitled  to  pre-eminent  regard?  "Let  us  eat  and  drink,  for 
to-morrow  we  die.  We  find  charms  enough  in  bodily  enjoy- 
ment ;  this  we  will  seek,  whatever  we  may  lose."  However 
rare  the  man  who  would  avow  in  words  that  he  has  such  a 
creed,  how  many  prove  that  it  is  so  by  their  lives ! 

But  the  world  has  higher  pleasures  to  offer  than  the  gratifi- 
cation of  the  animal  appetites.  From  the  gratification  of  the 
eye  and  the  ear  we  may  derive  the  keenest  enjoyment.  What 
delight  must  have  filled  the  minds  of  such  painters  and  sculp- 
tors as  Raphael  and  Michael  Angelo,  as  they  contemplated  day 
by  day  the  forms  of  beauty  which  they  have  reproduced  upon 
the  canvas  and  in  the  spotless  marble !  And  how  it  delights  us 
to  gaze  upon  their  works,  admiring  their  loveliness  and  grace. 
And  not  merely  in  art,  but  still  more  in  nature  are  we  sur- 
rounded on  every  side  by  scenes  of  beauty  and  splendor  and 
sublimity,  whether  we  look  up  to  the  heavens  adorned  by  the 
gorgeous  sunlit  clouds  on  a  summer's  evening,  or  over  the 


222 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


broad  expanse  of  the  boundless  ocean,  or  towards  the  mighty 
snow-capped  mountain  range,  or  from  the  mountain's  summit 
down  upon  the  landscape  variegated  with  hill  and  vale,  with  the 
busy  city  and  the  lonely  wilderness,  the  winding  river  and  the 
placid  lake.  When  thinking  of  these  pure  pleasures,  who  can 
deny  that  this  fair  world  has  much  to  offer  us  ? 

But  it  has  that  which  is  more  elevated  still.  The  pleasures 
of  intellectual  exercise  may  be  still  greater  than  the  purest  joys 
of  sense.  Every  one  has  experienced  something  of  these  in 
the  acquisition  and  communication  of  knowledge  and  in  the 
interchange  of  thought.  But  from  the  history  of  the  great 
thinkers  of  the  world  we  learn  more  fully  what  such  pleasures 
may  be.  Day  after  day  the  author  from  early  morning  till  the 
night  is  far  advanced  continues  thinking  and  composing  in  the 
highest  state  of  pleasurable  excitement.  Often  to  the  great 
English  mathematician  the  charms  of  abstruse  thought  were 
such  as  to  cause  the  accustomed  seasons  for  taking  food  and 
rest  to  pass  by  utterly  unnoticed.  And  what  ecstacy  is  the 
orator's  portion  as  he  stands  before  the  crowded  assembly, 
swaying  the  minds  of  all  who  hear  him  at  his  will,  and  by  the 
sympathy  which  he  receives  from  them  having  all  the  faculties 
of  his  own  mind  called  into  the  intensest  activity ! 

But  the  world  offers  something  better  even  than  the  highest 
intellectual  happiness.  Enter  the  happy  family  circle,  and  you 
will  see  the  purest  joy  which  the  earth  affords.  If  anything  on 
earth  will  satisfy  the  yearnings  of  the  heart  after  happiness,  it 
must  be  the  affections  which  cluster  around  the  home.  What 
more  could  be  desired  on  earth  than  the  felicity  and  the  sunny 
gladness  which  prevail  beneath  the  roof  where  all  is  love,  where 
conjugal  and  parental  and  filial  and  fraternal  affections  are 
continually  expressing  themselves  in  mutual  kindly  offices, 
whence  all  envy  and  selfishness  and  malice  are  banished,  where 
each  one  is  seeking  not  his  own  but  another's  good. 

Then  besides  all  these  the  world  has  wealth  and  power  and 
fame  to  offer.  It  points  you  to  a  German  boy  who  little  more 
than  half  a  century  ago  reached  the  shores  of  America  almost 
penniless,  and  yet  long  before  his  death  could  count  his  dollars 
by  the  million.  It  offers  you  money,  if  you  choose  it,  and 
suggests,  and  however  falsely,  yet  you  are  ready  to  believe  it, 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


223 


that  when  you  have  this,  you  can  buy  all  your  heart  can  wish. 
Or  do  you  prefer  power?  It  points  you  to  an  obscure  Corsican 
boy  who  became  the  mightiest  Emperor  of  his  day.  It  points 
you  to  the  nobler  example  of  the  Virginia  farmer's  son  who 
gained  such  power  that  he  had  the  glory  of  refusing  a  crown. 
And  how  the  world  seeks  to  attract  you  to  itself  by  causing  you 
to  hear  the  voice  of  the  mighty  multitude  raised  in  shouts  to  do 
honor  to  the  people's  favorite  !  And  do  you  not  long  to  occupy 
the  place  of  the  venerated  man  who  is  honored  by  the  spontanea 
ous  up-rising  of  the  assembly  which  he  enters,  whose  presence 
is  regarded  by  the  most  powerful  monarchs  as  a  favor  to  them, 
who  is  publicly  crowned  with  the  laurel  wreath  of  fame  in  the 
midst  of  an  admiring  throng?  Are  you  not  tempted  to  covet 
the  applause  bestowed  on  a  Shakespeare,  a  Milton,  a  Napoleon, 
a  Washington,  or  any  other  of  those  whom  the  world  delights 
to  call  great?  The  world  holds  out  all  of  this  to  you,  if  you 
will  serve  it.  And  is  there  not  much,  very  much  here  which  is 
well  worth  having,  which  it  is  wise  to  desire  most  earnestly? 
Are  not  these  rewards  worth  living  for,  worth  struggling  for, 
so  that  no  other  object  shall  receive  any  attention? 

But  before  we  conclude  to  choose  the  world  as  our  portion, 
let  us  consider  the  value  of  the  soul,  which  it  is  hinted  here,  we 
will  destroy,  should  this  be  our  choice.  And  let  me  remind  you 
that  this  has  been  and  remains  our  choice,  unless  we  have 
entered  actively  upon  a  struggle  to  save  the  soul. 

How  can  we  obtain  an  adequate  idea  of  its  worth?  Perhaps 
we  may  to  some  extent  by  observing  the  importance  attached  to 
its  mere  continuance  in  being,  without  regard  to  its  condition. 
Who  does  not  shrink  with  horror  from  the  idea  of  annihilation? 
Wrho  does  not  prefer  to  anticipate  any  amount  of  suffering  to 
non-existence?  And  observe  the  relative  value  of  this  world's 
good  things  and  a  few  days  of  life  destitute  of  these,  even  in 
the  eyes  of  one  most  devoted  to  the  latter.  Let  the  epicure,  the 
man  of  wealth  or  power,  be  fully  aware  that  death  is  at  hand ; 
and  let  him  believe  that  he  can,  by  giving  up  his  treasures  or 
his  power  or  the  gratification  of  the  appetite,  prolong  his  life 
only  a  few  days,  and  will  he  hesitate?  No!  All,  all  that  a 
man  hath  will  he  give  for  his  life.  Nor  need  this  surprise  us. 
It  is  the  mere  emotions  of  the  soul  with  reference  to  the 


224 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


things  of  the  world  that  constitute  the  value  of  the  world.  And 
must  not  the  existence  be  of  more  importance  than  the  transient 
frames?  Must  not  the  inherent  essence  of  the  soul  be  more 
than  the  exercise  of  its  powers? 

Again  we  may  add  something  to  our  conception  of  its  value 
by  observing  its  capacities.  We  have  already  seen  how  it  may 
enjoy:  reflect  that  its  capacity  in  this  direction  is  unlimited. 
Every  power  of  enjoyment  may  go  on  increasing  without  end. 
The  reverse  is  true  also.  Its  capacity  for  suffering  anguish 
and  woes  and  desolation  and  despair  is  unlimited,  too. 
Further,  we  are  in  the  habit  of  estimating  the  value  of  anything 
by  the  duration  of  its  possession.  We  are  not  willing  to  pay 
as  much  for  a  year's  possession  of  an  estate  as  for  a  life  interest 
in  it,  or  as  much  for  a  life  interest  as  for  its  possession  forever, 
as  we  vainly  say,  that  is,  that  it  may  belong  to  our  heirs  after 
us.  Apply  this  thought,  and  how  amazing  the  value  of  the 
deathless  soul  must  appear!  Let  us  grasp,  if  we  can,  the 
meaning  of  that  word — deathless.  This  world,  not  merely 
our  enjoyment  of  it,  but  the  world  itself  will  pass  away ;  but  the 
soul  lives  on,  and  so  will  continue  to  live  through  the  ceaseless 
cycles  of  eternity.  And  long  as  it  lives,  its  powers  will  be 
expanding;  it  will  be  rising  to  greater  heights  of  bliss  or  sinking 
to  lower  depths  of  woe. 

We  may  further  learn  its  value  from  its  rank  in  the  universe. 
What  more  could  be  said  to  show  its  rank  than  that  it  was 
formed  after  the  image  of  the  Creator  himself?  And  however 
marred,  it  bears  the  outlines  of  the  same  image  still.  It  is 
capable  of  restoration  to  the  perfect  state  in  which  it  was 
created.  What  then  can  be  worthy  to  be  compared  with  that 
which  has  been  made  after  such  an  image  and  may  be  brought 
fully  once  more  to  the  same  likeness  ? 

Lastly,  we  may  perceive  its  value  from  the  efforts  made  to 
destroy  it  and  to  rescue  it  from  destruction.  On  the  one  hand 
in  the  conflict  where  it  is  the  prize,  we  see  arrayed  all  the  pure 
and  holy  beings  in  the  universe  under  the  guidance  of  the  Lord 
of  hosts  himself.  On  the  other,  all  the  powers  of  darkness 
and  death,  all  the  wicked  spirits  in  high  places,  all  the  hosts  of 
Satan.  It  can  be  no  trifle  that  calls  into  opposition  such  forces. 
And  when  we  regard  the  means  by  which  the  struggle  is  carried 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


225 


on,  our  feeling  of  utter  inability  to  comprehend  the  value  of  the 
object  increases  moment  by  moment.  The  Leader  of  the 
heavenly  host  lays  aside  his  robes  of  glory  and  subjects  himself 
to  unutterable  humiliation,  testifying  by  every  pang  felt,  every 
insult  endured  by  himself  as  the  lowly  Nazarene,  how  he 
regards  the  soul  of  man.  See  the  incarnate  Son  of  God  pour- 
ing forth  his  blood  unto  death  that  it  may  have  life.  And 
when  a  soul  yields  to  his  power,  is  it  strange  that  a  thrill  of  joy 
should  agitate  the  countless  throng  of  angels  who  wait  around 
his  mediatorial  throne?  This  King  is  still  engaged  in  his  work 
of  rescuing  the  lost.  And  as  far  as  we  are  informed  all  the 
host  of  angels  are  continually  active  still  in  ministering  to  his 
saints — in  protecting  them  from  harm,  in  shielding  them  from 
temptation,  in  supporting  them  in  every  affliction,  and  in  wait- 
ing to  bear  them  up  to  their  Master's  presence,  trophies  of  his 
redeeming  love,  that  they  may  be  forever  with  the  Lord. 

As  it  is  the  highest  employment  and  delight  of  these  holy 
beings  thus  to  serve  their  Sovereign,  so  it  is  the  unceasing  aim 
of  the  fallen  angels  to  drag  the  soul  of  man  down  with  them  to 
the  place  prepared  for  them  and  their  master.  Thus  it  is  that 
the  soul  of  man  still 

"keeps  two  worlds  at  strife: 
Hell  moves  beneath  to  work  its  death, 
Heaven  stoops  to  give  it  life." 

Now  the  Son  of  God  proposes  to  you  the  question:  "What 
shall  it  profit  you,  if  you  shall  gain  the  whole  world  and  lose 
your  own  soul  ?"  Have  you  fully  considered  it  ?  And  reached 
a  conclusion  with  which  you  will  be  content  to  answer  the 
questioner  when  you  stand  before  him  sitting  on  his  throne  of 
judgment? 

Let  us  reflect  further  what  it  is  to  lose  the  soul.  As  it  is 
deathless  in  the  sense  that  it  continues  to  exist,  the  least  that  it 
can  mean  to  lose  it  is  that  it  will  be  no  longer  in  possession  of 
this  world  and  its  joys.  After  having  once  tasted  these  and 
had  all  its  happiness  therein,  it  is  separated  completely  from  all, 
and  forever.  The  soul,  at  the  death  of  the  body,  is  torn  away 
from  all  that  it  values.  It  can  carry  nothing  with  it,  except  the 
memory  of  past  joys,  for  which  it  will  yearn  in  vain  through 
eternity.    And  the  present  feeling  of  loss  will  be  greater  in 


15— w 


226 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


proportion  to  the  happiness  remembered.  To  this  will  be 
added  the  thought  that  it  might  have  been  otherwise  but  for  the 
mad  folly  of  the  choice  made,  when  choice  was  possible.  It  is 
a  great  relief,  when  we  are  stripped  of  comforts  which  we  have 
enjoyed,  to  be  able  to  reflect  that  we  could  not  help  it,  that  it 
is  our  misfortune,  not  our  fault.  But  here  there  will  be  no 
such  relief.    We  will  have  to  blame  ourselves  alone. 

But  the  loss  of  the  soul  involves  more  than  simple  separa- 
tion from  former  sources  of  happiness.  It  involves  the  posi- 
tive infliction  of  suffering,  which  is  represented  in  the  word 
of  truth  by  the  most  appalling  figures  that  language  can 
express.  The  soul  must  dwell,  we  learn  from  this  word;  not 
only  not  surrounded  by  the  joy-giving  sights  and  sounds  of 
former  times,  but  where  there  is  weeping  and  wailing  and 
gnashing  of  teeth,  where  their  worm  dieth  not  and  the  fire  is 
not  quenched;  in  the  blackness  of  darkness  forever,  drinking 
the  wine  of  the  wrath  of  God,  in  everlasting  burnings,  tor- 
mented with  fire  forever  and  ever.  Who  does  not  shrink  back 
affrighted  in  view  of  such  representations  of  the  state  of  the 
lost  soul?  And  how  is  the  impression  they  make  upon  us 
deepened,  when  we  remember  that  these  are  the  words,  not  of  a 
stern,  unmerciful  tyrant,  who  delights  in  torturing  his  subjects, 
but  of  one  who  has  proved  himself  a  God  of  love  indeed,  by  the 
costliest  sacrifice  on  Calvary. 

We  will  not  consider  at  present  why  this  will  be  the  state  of 
the  soul,  why  One  so  merciful  will  inflict  such  punishment. 
We  only  wish  now  to  ascertain  the  facts  without  immediate 
reference  to  the  causes,  that  an  enlightened  choice  may  be 
made. 

On  the  other  hand,  reflect  what  it  is  for  the  soul  to  be  saved. 
Instead  of  having  its  capacities  for  suffering  continually 
expanding  and  the  actual  woe  increasing  too,  it  will  be  every 
moment  more  capable  of  enjoyment,  and  will  be  surrounded 
with  everything  that  can  minister  to  these  powers.  The 
inspired  word  in  describing  its  future  state  exhausts  every 
expression  that  can  present  vividly  to  the  mind  the  loftiest 
height  of  bliss.  Do  the  beautiful  and  sublime  scenes  of  this 
earth  fill  the  soul  with  delight?  If  saved,  it  shall  dwell  in 
everlasting  light,  beholding  the  glory  which  the  Father  has 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


227 


given  to  the  Son  whom  he  loved  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world.  Are  riches  desirable?  This  soul  shall  inherit  all 
things.  Do  the  ceaseless  changes  here  fill  the  heart  with 
uneasy  sadness  ?  It  shall  dwrell  in  a  house  eternal  in  the 
heavens,  in  a  city  that  hath  foundations  that  cannot  be  moved. 
Is  power  eagerly  sought  after?  Are  thrones  regarded  as  the 
highest  prizes  which  earth  offers,  worth  risking  the  life  for? 
The  soul  which  is  saved  will  gain  a  crown  of  righteousness, 
of  glory,  of  life;  it  will  sit  in  judgment  with  Christ,  and 
reign  with  this  King  of  the  universe  forever  and  ever.  Is  it 
true,  as  was  asserted,  that  the  highest  happiness  on  earth  is  in 
the  exercise  of  the  affections,  in  loving  and  in  being  the  object 
of  love?  The  eternal  Source  of  love  will  fill  the  soul  to  over- 
flowing with  this  purest  and  most  ecstatic  bliss.  What  greater 
attractions  could  be  presented  than  these? 

Now  contrast  honestly  and  fairly  the  advantages  offered  you 
by  the  world,  even  if  you  gain  it  all,  and  the  horrors  of  the  loss 
of  the  soul.  Then  answer  the  Saviour's  question.  Or  answer 
it  after  comparing  the  joys  the  world  can  give  with  those  which 
that  soul  will  possess  which  does  not  prefer  the  present  seem- 
ing good. 

It  is  clearly  implied  in  these  questions  that  if  we  make  the 
gaining  of  this  world  our  chief  aim,  we  will  inevitably  lose  our 
souls.  It  is  not  necessary  that  we  engage  habitually  in  out- 
breaking sins,  offensive  and  odious  to  our  fellow-men  as  well 
as  to  the  holy  God.  We  may  be  upright  and  honored  citizens ; 
we  may  do  many  an  act  of  kindness.  But  if  we  are  devoted 
wholly,  however  honorably  before  men.  to  the  world,  we  are 
undone.  Hence  if  we  are  entirely  successful,  our  gains  must 
all  be  given  up  forever  when  death  comes. 

But  if  we  make  the  wiser  choice,  and  seek  first  the  salvation 
of  our  souls  by  renouncing  the  world,  we  not  only  avoid  the 
tremendous  loss  and  secure  the  salvation,  but,  by  another  seem- 
ing contradiction,  we  gain  much  more  happiness  even  from  the 
world  than  those  most  devoted  to  it.  It  is  true  we  may  and 
will  suffer  persecution;  but  even  though  at  last  hunted  unto 
death,  the  paradox  is  true.  The  joys  of  friendship,  of  home 
affections,  of  gratified  taste,  of  the  possession  of  the  earthly 
gifts  of  God,  these  cannot  be  experienced  in  their  best  form 


228 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


until  they  have  all  been  renounced  as  the  chief  good.  Thus  we 
may  have  the  promise  of  the  life  that  now  is,  as  well  as  of  that 
which  is  to  come.  By  giving  up  this  world  we  gain  it  most 
effectually,  and  besides,  every  other  happiness  the  whole 
universe  contains,  and  all  forever.  While  by  the  opposite 
course  we  can  at  best  have  only  poor  success  for  a  few  short 
years,  and  then — all  is  lost. 

But  yet  while  all  this  is  true,  and  while  in  a  certain  sense  we 
all  believe  it,  how  many  go  on  preferring  the  straws  they  can 
collect  with  the  muck-rake  to  the  crown  which  is  held  out  to 
them ! 

Will  any  of  you  determine  to  perish  thus?  Will  you  reject 
the  treasure  and  choose  the  bauble  ?  Take  a  sober  view  of  the 
matter,  and  say  whether  this  is  worthy  of  rational  beings. 
Observe  the  feverish  anxiety  with  which  the  farmer  watches 
the  growth  of  his  crop;  how  he  rejoices  when  the  fertilising 
rain  descends ;  how  he  is  depressed  by  carking  care  when  he  has 
reason  to  fear  the  seed  has  been  planted  in  vain.  Estimate 
fairly  the  happiness  of  the  merchant,  when  money  is  abundant, 
when  his  profits  and  sales  are  large,  making  proper  abatement 
for  the  dark  days  of  possible  commercial  adversity.  Of  the 
professional  man,  when  his  reputation  is  daily  becoming  higher 
and  there  is  a  prospect  that  his  brightest  hopes  will  become 
realities.  As  citizens,  all  are  intensely  interested  just  now  in 
the  political  affairs  of  our  country:  how  anxious  we  are  that 
our  plans  may  succeed,  and  that  our  new  government  may  be 
successfully  established,  our  arms  victorious,  and  peace  soon 
secured.  Suppose  we  succeed  here,  calculate  again  what  the 
happiness  from  this  source  will  be.  Suppose  you  have  been 
passing  months  of  gaiety  in  a  whirlwind  of  delight-giving 
excitement  beyond  your  brightest  anticipations.  Or  if  your 
preferences  lead  you  in  other  directions,  suppose  that  you  have 
exhausted  all  the  pleasures  that  knowledge,  or  taste,  or  litera- 
ture, or  art  can  yield.  Or  that  you  have  obtained  the  good 
which  the  stoic  affects  to  find  in  despising  every  pleasure. 
Suppose  that  you  have  gained  all  you  seek  in  any  or  all  of 
these  ways,  that  you  have  succeeded,  I  will  not  say  to  your 
heart's  content,  for  if  you  know  your  hearts,  you  know  that 
were  impossible ;  but  that  you  have  succeeded  far  beyond  your 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


229 


present  highest  expectations,  what  then?  What  then?  Will 
you,  can  you,  with  such  deathless  souls  as  yours,  be  satisfied 
thus,  with  these  fleeting  gains,  forever?  Think  of  this;  keep 
it  fixed  before  your  mind ;  repeat  to  yourselves  continually  the 
Saviour's  question,  with  the  advantages  and  the  unutterable 
losses  of  the  different  sides  in  full  view.  Suppose  your  soul 
once  lost ;  what  have  you  gained  that  you  can  give  in  exchange 
for  it,  that  it  may  be  recovered  from  the  everlasting  burnings  ? 

Let  not  this  subject  depart  from  your  thoughts  until  you 
have  come  to  a  decision  with  which  you  will  calmly  and  joy- 
ously look  to  the  hour  of  death  and  the  eternity  that  follows. 
If  your  affections  are  set  supremely  upon  the  world,  there  is 
danger  every  moment  that  your  soul  may  be  lost.  If  you  are 
aware  of  such  danger,  if  there  is  a  sword  actually  hanging  over 
you,  threatening  every  moment  instant  destruction,  give  not 
sleep  to  your  eyes  nor  slumber  to  your  eyelids  until  you  have 
found  some  means  of  averting  the  awful  fate. 

May  the  Spirit  of  God  guide  you  speedily  to  a  place  of 
safety. 


230 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Sermon. 


Romans  6:23  (first  clause).    "For  the  wages  of  sin  is  death." 

The  dignity  and  excellence  of  human  nature  It  always 
delights  us  to  contemplate.  We  are  always  pleased  when  we 
are  told  that  man  was  created  in  the  image  of  God.  And  when 
we  perceive  the  varied  proofs  and  illustrations  of  this,  we 
exult  with  pride  that  we  stand  so  high  in  the  scale  of  being. 
With  what  self-satisfaction  we  regard  the  lofty  intellectual 
powers  which  characterise  our  race,  and  their  wonderful 
achievements,  in  the  production  of  thoughts  which  cannot  die, 
of  pictures  from  the  imagination  which  will  afford  perennial 
delight,  in  the  erection  of  the  glorious  temple  of  human  science, 
in  the  almost  unlimited  control  over  all  material  nature, 
whereby  the  subltest  and  fiercest  elements  stand  ready  to  do 
man's  bidding!  And  when  we  turn  to  our  moral  nature,  how 
intense  the  gratification  with  which  we  dwell  upon  the  noble 
traits  we  find  there :  the  generosity,  the  keen  sense  of  honor  and 
of  justice,  the  philanthropy,  which  seeks  out  human  distress 
and  hastens  to  relieve  it ;  the  constancy  in  affection,  the  fidelity 
in  friendship,  which  puts  to  shame  the  sneer  that  it  is  a 
mercenary  tribute  to  the  rising  sun.  When  we  raise  our 
thoughts  to  God,  we  find  unceasing  happiness  in  tracing  in  his 
word  and  his  works  the  numberless  proofs  of  his  infinite  wis- 
dom and  power  and  benevolence,  of  his  boundless  long-suffer- 
ing and  mercy  and  love.  And  it  is  right  that  we  open  our 
hearts  to  receive  all  the  happiness  that  such  contemplations  are 
so  well  fitted  to  afford. 

But  surely  we  should  carefully  guard  against  taking  a  one- 
sided view  of  any  of  these  subjects.  And  if  truth  would 
reveal  to  the  listening  ear  other  facts  which  it  is  of  vital 
importance  that  we  know,  we  would  be  guilty  of  the  saddest 
folly,  were  we  to  turn  away  because  of  the  harsh  and  grating 
sounds  in  which  they  are  conveyed.  It  might  be  far  more 
pleasant  to  the  physician  to  speak  to  his  patient,  on  whose  cheek 
he  sees  the  hectic  flush,  of  the  joys  of  health  soon  restored  and 
of  long  life,  without  any  resort  to  the  carefully  applied  and 
perhaps  painful  remedy,  than  of  the  frightful  disease  which  is 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


231 


gnawing  at  his  vitals,  and  of  the  absolute  importance  of  the 
instant  application  of  whatever  remedy  experience  and  skill  can 
suggest.  But  what  would  be  thought  of  his  fidelity?  And 
what  would  we  think  of  the  pilot,  intrusted  with  the  care  of  a 
noble  ship  in  the  midst  of  deceitful  currents  and  hidden  rocks, 
were  he  to  delight  the  helmsman  without  ceasing  by  telling  him 
of  the  beauties  and  various  advantages  of  the  port  they  would 
enter,  thus  withdrawing  the  attention  wholly  from  the  dangers 
on  every  side,  which,  unheeded,  would  bring  all  to  utter  ruin? 

But  even  if  the  reasons  now  hinted  at  did  not  exist,  the 
minister  of  the  word  has  here  no  option.  He  hears  the  blight- 
ing curse  that  rests  upon  those  who  "heal  the  hurt  of  the 
daughter  of  God's  people  slightly,  saying,  Peace,  peace;  when 
there  is  no  peace."  He  hears  his  Sovereign  Lord  saying  to 
him,  "Thou  shalt  hear  the  word  at  my  mouth  and  warn  them 
from  me.  When  I  say  unto  the  wicked,  O  wicked  man,  thou 
shalt  surely  die;  if  thou  dost  not  speak  to  warn  the  wicked 
from  his  way,  that  wicked  man  shall  die  in  his  iniquity ;  but  his 
blood  will  I  require  at  thy  hand."  "Nevertheless  if  thou  warn 
the  wicked  of  his  way  to  turn  from  it,  if  he  do  not  turn  from 
his  way,  he  shall  die  in  his  iniquity;  but  thou  hast  delivered 
thy  soul."  Therefore,  however  pleasant  it  may  be  to  gaze  upon 
the  bright  side  of  the  picture,  to  look  forward  to  the  glory  and 
joy  of  heaven,  it  is  wise  at  times  to  regard*  the  reverse.  If  you 
have  no  well-grounded  reason  for  your  hope  of  heaven,  while 
we  would  win  you  to  enter  the  path  which  will  lead  you  thither, 
we  must  also  point  out  the  end  of  the  road  in  which  you  are 
now  walking.  If  you  have  already  received  the  precious  gift 
of  God,  even  eternal  life, — as  you  look  back  into  the  horrible 
pit  and  the  miry  clay,  out  of  which  he  has  brought  you  up,  to 
set  your  feet  upon  a  rock,  surely  you  will  be  excited  to  still 
livelier  gratitude :  a  new  song  will  be  put  in  your  mouth,  even 
praise  unto  our  God. 

Let  us  then  direct  our  attention  to  the  words  of  the  text: 
"The  wages  of  sin  is  death." 

In  the  preceding  chapters  the  Apostle  had  been  unfolding 
that  fundamental  doctrine  of  our  religion  "that  a  man  is  justi- 
fied by  faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law."  He  perceives  that 
it  will  be  objected  to  this  doctrine  that  it  encourages  men  to 


232 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


continue  in  sin  that  grace  may  abound :  therefore  he  shows  that 
this  cannot  be,  from  the  nature  of  the  union  with  Christ  which 
faith  secures;  that  justification  is  attended  invariably  and 
necessarily  by  sanctification.  Then  in  the  latter  part  of  this 
chapter  he  exhorts  to  holiness  of  life,  encouraging  thereto  by 
showing  that  the  justified  are  no  longer  under  the  dominion  of 
sin.  And  if  you  are  free  from  its  shackles,  you  must  and  will 
yield  your  members  to  holiness.  If  you  sin,  you  cannot  be  the 
servant  of  the  God  of  righteousness,  nor  can  you  receive  the 
gifts,  the  gracious  rewards  offered  to  such  a  servant.  If  you 
sin,  then  are  you  the  servant  of  sin ;  and  the  wages  of  sin  must 
be  yours. 

What  is  this  terrible  thing  rewarded  by  wages  which,  it 
would  seem,  we  are  in  danger  of  earning?  We  are  often 
likened  in  the  Scriptures  to  those  who  are  laboring  for  hire. 
And  since  we  are  so  situated,  it  is  of  vital  importance  that  we 
scrutinise  with  all  possible  care  the  character  of  our  labor,  that 
we  may  know  what  will  be  our  pay. 

Sin,  as  the  apostle  John  has  defined  it,  is  the  transgression 
of  the  law.  The  law  of  our  Sovereign  Lord  requires  of  us 
perfect  holiness  of  heart,  complete  conformity  to  the  image  of 
God,  so  that  we  will  love  all  that  he  loves,  and  hate  all  that  he 
hates.  It  requires  of  us,  secondly,  that  we  perfectly  obey  his 
will  in  all  things,  that  every  moment  of  our  lives  shall  be  most 
diligently  spent  in  honoring  him,  and  in  manifesting  our  love  to 
him  by  joyfully  keeping  his  commandments. 

We  see  at  once  that  tried  by  either  of  these  tests,  we  have 
earned  the  dreadful  wages.  Our  souls  have  not  been  conformed 
to  the  image  of  God ;  we  have  not  obeyed  in  all  things  his  com- 
mandments. 

Death  is  our  due,  then,  first,  in  consequence  of  the  sinfulness 
of  our  nature,  which  we  have  derived  from  our  first  parents. 
It  pleased  God  to  constitute  the  natural  head  of  our  race  our 
representative,  which  he  had  a  right  to  do  as  Sovereign  Creator, 
and  to  put  him,  not  only  for  himself,  but  for  his  posterity,  in  a 
state  of  probation.  If  he  pass  through  this  successfully,  he 
secures  incalculable  blessings  for  himself  and  for  all  his  chil- 
dren, to  the  latest  generation :  he  and  they  will  be  kept  by  the 
power  of  God,  as  are  the  elect  angels  and  the  redeemed  in 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


233 


heaven,  from  the  possibility  of  falling  in  the  future  into  sin, 
and,  consequently,  into  suffering.  If  he  fail,  he  and  they  must 
die.  The  circumstances  are  eminently  favorable  to  his  success  : 
his  nature  is  holy:  full  provision  is  made  for  every  want;  he 
receives  from  God  daily  communications  of  his  will.  Yet,  with 
the  strongest  motives  to  obedience  in  the  face  of  all,  he  does 
the  only  outward  deed  which  is  forbidden,  and  thereby  earns 
for  himself  and  for  us  the  threatened  death.  Thus  have  we 
been  deprived  of  that  "righteousness  wherein  God  created  our 
federal  head,  and  become  partakers  of  that  corruption  of 
nature  whereby  we  are  utterly  indisposed,  disabled,  and  made 
opposite  unto  all  that  is  spiritually  good,  and  wholly  inclined 
to  all  evil,  and  that  continually." 

That  we  are  involved  in  Adam's  sin,  that  God  regards  us  as 
sinners,  because  he  sinned,  is  very  clearly  taught  in  God's  word ; 
and  it  is  a  doctrine  which  we  see  illustrated  in  all  the  world's 
history.  The  apostle  Paul  tells  us  that  in  Adam  all  die ; 
through  the  offence  of  one,  many  be  dead;  by  the  offence  of 
one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation.  And 
reason  approves  this  as  the  justest  explanation  of  what  we  see 
every  day  in  a  thousand  forms,  that  penal  evils  are  visited  upon 
those  who  themselves  have  not  committed  the  sins  punished. 
A  just  God,  and  still  more,  a  God  of  benevolence  could  not 
inflict  pain  upon  the  personally  innocent,  unless  he  had  some 
good  ground  for  treating  them  as  sinners :  and  what  more 
probable  ground  can  be  pointed  out  than  this,  that  all  sinned  in 
Adam  their  representative?  The  only  plausible  objection  may 
be  found  in  the  question  of  God's  right  to  constitute  a  relation- 
ship involving  such  consequences.  But  to  vindicate  even  this, 
we  may  still  refer  to  principles  universally  admitted  among 
men:  Every  one  admits  that  the  child  is  justly  bound  by  the 
contracts  of  the  parent;  no  one  complains  of  injustice  when 
the  non-voting  population  suffer  in  consequence  of  the  acts  of 
their  rulers  in  whose  election  they  had  no  voice ;  no  child  ever 
hesitated  to  insist  upon  its  right  to  the  estates  of  its  father. 
But  should  any  still  object  to  it  as  injustice,  notwithstanding  all 
the  evidence  furnished  in  the  word  of  God,  and  in  the  principles 
which  we  unhesitatingly  adopt  in  other  cases,  especially  such  as 
tend  to  our  advantage,  let  the  apostle  answer  him:    "Nay  but, 


234 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


O  man,  who  art  thou  that  repliest  against  God?  Shall  the 
thing  formed  say  to  him  that  formed  it,  Why  hast  thou  made 
me  thus?" 

But  our  connexion  with  Adam  is  not  the  only  ground  of  our 
exposure  to  death.  If  we  have  been  using  this  proverb,  "The 
fathers  have  eaten  sour  grapes,  and  the  children's  teeth  are  set 
on  edge,"  we  can  no  longer  use  it,  when  we  hear  the  words : 
"As  I  live,  saith  the  Lord  God,  ye  shall  not  have  occasion  any 
more  to  use  this  proverb  in  Israel.  Behold,  all  souls  are  mine ; 
as  the  soul  of  the  father,  so  also  the  soul  of  the  son  is  mine; 
the  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die."  "But  if  a  man  hath  walked 
in  my  statutes  and  hath  kept  my  judgments,  to  deal  truly,  he  is 
just;  he  shall  surely  live,  saith  the  Lord  God."  Thus  each  of 
us  is  put  on  trial  for  himself ;  life  and  death  are  set  before  us. 
If  death  be  our  portion,  it  will  be  the  result  of  our  own  sin. 

Let  us  next,  then,  consider  some  of  the  requirements  of 
God's  law  that  we  may  bring  before  our  minds  the  nature  of 
actual  sin.  And  let  us,  as  we  proceed,  diligently  and  with 
prayer  for  divine  assistance  compare  our  lives  with  the  holy 
and  just  and  good  law,  looking  attentively  upon  it  as  a  mirror, 
revealing  to  us  our  true  characters  as  it  is  held  up  to  our  view. 

In  the  first  and  great  commandment  it  is  enjoined  upon 
us  that  throughout  all  our  lives  we  love  the  Lord  our  God  with 
all  the  heart,  with  all  the  soul,  with  all  the  strength,  and  with 
all  the  mind.  In  the  second,  which  is  like  unto  it,  that  we  love 
our  neighbor  as  ourselves.    Have:  we  thus  done? 

Have  we  known  and  acknowledged  God  to  be  the  only  true 
God,  and  our  God,  and  worshipped  and  glorified  him  accord- 
ingly? Have  we  received,  observed,  and  kept  pure  and  entire 
all  such  religious  worship  and  ordinances  as  God  hath  appointed 
in  his  word  ?  Have  we  made  a  holy  and  reverent  use  of  God's 
names,  titles,  attributes,  ordinances,  word,  and  works ;  or  have 
we  profanely  used  them  only  to  enable  us  to  express  with 
emphasis  our  wicked  anger,  or  to  point  the  vile  jest?  Have 
we  without  a  single  moment's  failure  kept  holy  the  Sabbath 
day?  Such  are  the  duties  in  which  our  love  to  God  finds  its 
expression.  Transgression  in  any  one  of  these  points  is  in 
every  sense  direct  sin  against  God. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


235 


We  are  required  further  to  honor  our  parents,  and  to  per- 
form all  duties  belonging  to  our  superiors,  inferiors,  and 
equals;  to  shut  out  from  our  minds  all  angry  passions,  malice, 
hatred,  everything  tending  to  make  us  murderers  at  heart,  as 
well  as  to  abstain  from  the  outward  deed ;  to  avoid  all  impurity 
in  heart,  speech,  and  behavior.  We  are  required  to  be  true, 
faithful,  and  just  in  our  contracts,  rendering  to  every  one  his 
due,  and  abstaining  from  all  unjust  or  sinful  ways  of  taking  or 
withholding  from  our  neighbor  what  belongs  to  him,  or  of 
enriching  ourselves  by  oppression,  extortion,  engrossing  com- 
modities to  enhance  the  price,  or  otherwise.  We  must  not  be 
of  those  that  "swallow  up  the  needy,  even  to  make  the  poor  of 
the  land  to  fail,  saying,  When  will  the  new  moon  be  gone  that 
we  may  sell  corn?  and  the  sabbath,  that  we  may  set  forth 
wheat,  making  the  ephah  small  and  the  shekel  great,  and  falsi- 
fying the  balances  by  deceit?  That  we  may  buy  the  poor  for 
silver,  and  the  needy  for  a  pair  of  shoes ;  yea,  and  sell  the 
refuse  of  wheat."  We  are  commanded  to  maintain  and  pro- 
mote truth  between  man  and  man,  and  to  be  careful  of  our  own 
and  our  neighbor's  good  name ;  to  be  free  from  discontentment 
with  our  own  estate,  from  envying  or  grieving  at  the  good 
of  our  neighbor,  and  from  all  inordinate  desire  for  anything 
that  is  his.  Xow  have  we  the  testimony  of  our  consciences  that 
in  all  these  particulars  we  have  shown  our  love  to  our  neighbor 
to  be  equal  to  that  we  have  to  ourselves?  If  not,  then  by  every 
single  transgression,  even  in  thought,  in  a  way  which  none  but 
God  could  know  and  with  respect  to  what  we  might  regard  at 
the  time  as  a  trivial  matter,  we  have  earned  the  appointed 
wages — death.  Are  we  not  all  forced  to  confess  with  shame 
and  confusion  of  face  that  we  have  daily  and  voluntarily  sinned 
in  thought,  word,  and  deed  :  and  that  God  would  be  just  in 
inflicting  upon  us  all  that  the  sinning  soul  deserves? 

It  is  not  necessary  to  violate  all  of  the  commandments  to 
bring  ourselves  into  this  condition ;  for  we  are  told  that  <l who- 
soever shall  keep  the  whole  law,  and  yet  offend  in  one  point, 
he  is  guilty  of  all not  that  he  is  as  vile  a  sinner  as  he  who  has 
offended  in  all,  not  that  all  sins  are  equal  in  the  sight  of  God 
and  will  be  punished  with  equal  severity ;  but  he  that  offends  in 
one  point  has  been  guilty  of  disobedience  to  God,  which  consti- 


236 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


tutes  the  essence  of  all  sin,  and  by  the  one  act  renders  certain 
the  recompence.  But  as  far  as  we  are  concerned,  in  view  of 
our  many  transgressions,  this  is  to  us  a  question  of  very  little 
practical  importance.  It  is  of  greater  moment  to  us,  with  our 
past  history  before  our  eyes,  to  consider  what  are  some  of  the 
aggravations  which  render  sins  more  heinous. 

First,  then,  sin  is  greatly  aggravated  by  knowledge.  "That 
servant  which  knew  his  lord's  will,  and  prepared  not  himself, 
neither  did  according  to  his  will,  shall  be  beaten  with  many 
stripes."  Said  our  Lord  of  those  whose  knowledge  of  his 
words  was  much  less  than  ours  may  be :  "If  I  had  not  come 
and  spoken  unto  them,  they  had  not  had  sin ;  but  now  they  have 
no  cloke  for  their  sin."  So  the  criminality  of  sin  is  heightened 
by  being  committed  deliberately  and  wilfully,  and  in  violation 
of  professions  and  promises,  and  against  repeated  warnings. 
"He  that,  being  often  reproved,  hardeneth  his  neck,  shall  sud- 
denly be  destroyed,  and  that  without  remedy." 

But  the  gravest  enormity  belongs  to  sins  directly  against  God 
himself,  when  the  first  table  of  his  law  is  violated,  and  above 
all,  when  his  mercy  and  love  through  Jesus  Christ  are  spurned 
or  treated  with  cold  indifference.  This — unbelief — is  the  sin 
which  he  has  singled  out  as  surpassing  all  others  in  wickedness ; 
and  yet  there  is  perhaps  hardly  one  looked  upon  as  more  venial 
by  very  many  persons  who  acknowledge  their  obligation  to  obey 
the  law  of  God.  It  is  not  disbelief,  it  is  not  an  open  and  violent 
rejection  of  the  truth;  this  crowning  sin  is  merely  a  failure  to 
believe  with  the  heart  unto  righteousness.  Hear  how  the 
Spirit  of  truth  speaks  of  this  sin,  of  which  we  may  be  prone 
to  think  so  lightly:  "He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  of  God 
hath  the  witness  in  himself;  he  that  believeth  not  God,  hath 
made  him  a  liar,  because  he  believeth  not  the  record  that  God 
gave  of  his  Son." 

Let  us  next  consider  what  is  included  in  the  word  death,  the 
pay  which  Satan  gives  to  his  unhappy  hirelings.  We  cannot 
tell  what  the  death  includes  which,  if  Christ  had  not  lived, 
those  would  have  suffered  who  had  not  sinned  after  the  simili- 
tude of  Adam's  transgression,  that  is,  who  had  not  committed 
actual  sin  themselves  at  all.  God  has  not  informed  us  to  what 
extent  the  penal  evils  would  have  reached  to  which  they  would 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


237 


have  been  exposed,  whether  beyond  the  physical  suffering  of 
this  life  and  natural  death,  or  only  to  this  point  ;  and  it  would 
ill  become  me  to  express  an  opinion.  But  of  this  we  may- 
rest  assured,  that  whatever  the  extent  of  the  death  introduced 
by  the  first  Adam's  offence,  now  through  the  last  Adam  will 
grace  abound  much  more  in  giving  to  all  who  commit  not 
voluntary  sin, — to  the  infant  dying  in  infancy  and  to  the  irre- 
sponsible person  from  whatever  cause. — in  giving  to  all  of  these 
holiness  of  nature,  the  favor  of  God.  and  eternal  life. 

But  we  are  not  left  in  similar  doubt  as  to  the  character  of 
the  death  which  is  the  reward  of  actual  sin.  It  reaches  in 
every  direction  far  beyond  the  mere  separation  of  the  soul  from 
the  body,  to  which  we  often  confine  the  term.  The  first  trans- 
gressor began  to  reap  the  bitter  fruit  of  his  sin  on  the  very  day 
on  which  he  committed  it,  in  literal  accordance  with  the  words 
of  the  Lawgiver,  "In  the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt 
surely  die."  It  included  the  appalling  fear  and  horror  of 
conscience,  which  filled  the  souls  of  Adam  and  his  wife,  when 
they  "heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord  God,  walking  in  the  garden/7 
before  so  gladly  welcomed.  It  included  all  the  anguish  that 
wrung  their  hearts,  when  the  cry  of  the  blood  of  the  righteous 
Abel  came  to  their  ears,  proclaiming  that  their  first-born  was 
a  murderer,  and  his  upright  brother  his  victim.  And  it  included 
every  bodily  pain  and  every  throe  that  convulsed  their  souls 
during  all  the  wearisome  years  they  spent  on  earth. 

So  all  men  receive  even  in  this  life  part  of  the  wages  of  their 
sins.  The  necessity  of  toilsome  labor,  the  craving  of  unsated 
hunger  and  thirst,  the  burning  fever  and  the  wasting  consump- 
tion, the  loathsome  and  racking  disease  in  whatever  form ; 
disappointment,  worldly  calamity  of  every  kind,  and  the  fear 
of  it ;  the  torture  inflicted  by  the  unquiet  and  fiercely  turbulent, 
wicked  passions  of  the  soul ;  all  the  woes  brought  upon  man  by 
crime,  by  direful  war  with  its  frightful  train  of  attendant  evils, 
by  the  horrible  pestilence  and  gaunt  famine ;  all  spiritual  pun- 
ishment, as  impenitence,  blindness  of  heart,  strong  delusion 
predisposing  to  believe  a  lie,  vile  affections ;  these  with  all 
other  evils  that  befall  us  in  our  bodies,  names,  estates,  relations, 
and  employments,  form  that  part  of  the  threatened  death  which 
is  suffered  in  this  life. 


238 


DR.  JAMKS  WOODROW. 


Then  comes  the  death  that  consists  in  the  separation  of  the 
soul  from  the  body,  which  is  taken  as  a  type  of  all  the  dreadful 
consequences  of  sin.  And  although  it  represents  these  but 
feebly,  yet  it  is  well  named  the  king  of  terrors,  even  to  those 
to  whom  the  words — after  death  the  judgment — are  an  idle 
sound.  All  the  evils  of  this  life,  at  which  we  have  glanced,  are 
chiefly  dreaded  only  as  they  are  connected  with  death,  or  end  in 
it.  It  is  this  that  gives  their  most  frightful  aspect  to  disease, 
war,  pestilence,  and  famine.  It  is  this  that  causes  the  orphan's 
wail  and  the  widow's  lament.  It  is  this  that  brings  the  father's 
gray  hairs  with  sorrow  to  the  grave ;  it  is  this  that  changes  the 
abode  of  gladness  into  the  house  of  mourning.  Observe  its 
transforming  power :  so  horrible  is  it,  that  the  form  most  loved, 
which  we  shield  with  the  tenderest  care  from  the  most  trivial 
discomfort,  which  we  cherish  beyond  all  else  that  is  earthly,  at 
its  touch  becomes  so  repulsive  that  we  hasten  to  remove  it  from 
our  sight  and  from  our  abode,  and  to  consign  it  to  the  dark  and 
noisome  tomb. 

But  thickly-clustered  as  horrors  are  around  this  death,  and 
dreaded  as  it  is,  even  when  deprived  of  its  sting,  it  forms  but 
a  very  small  part  of  the  wages  of  sin.  It  is  the  eternal  separa- 
tion from  the  love  of  God,  the  eternal  endurance  of  the  wrath 
of  God  in  company  with  the  devil  and  his  angels,  with  the 
fearful  and  unbelieving  and  the  abominable  and  murderers  and 
whoremongers,  and  sorcerers  and  idolaters  and  all  liars,  who 
have  their  part  in  the  lake  which  burneth  with  fire  and  brim- 
stone ;  it  is  this  that  constitutes  the  second  death.  It  is  after 
the  death  of  the  body  that  there  comes  what  is  so  much  better 
entitled  to  the  name,  an  "everlasting  separation  from  the  com- 
fortable presence  of  God,  and  most  grievous  torments  in  soul 
and  body  without  intermission  in  hell-fire  forever/'  What 
fearful  images  of  horror  does  the  word  hell  bring  before  the 
mind.  Its  symbol  to  the  ancient  Jew  was  Tophet,  the  valley  of 
the  son  of  Hinnom,  into  which  everything  loathsome  and  vile 
was  cast  from  Jerusalem,  and  where  burned  perpetual  fire. 
The  gracious  Redeemer  and  his  apostles  spoke  of  it  as  the 
"  furnace  of  fire  where  should  be  wailing  and  gnashing  of  teeth, 
where  the  worm  dieth  not,  and  their  fire  is  not  quenched,"  "a 
tormenting  flame"  where  a  single  drop  of  water  from  the  finger 


HIS  TEACHINGS 


239 


of  one  lately  a  beggar  all  covered  with  sores  would  be  an 
inestimable  relief. 

Such  are  the  components  of  the  second  death.  To  those 
who  are  suffering  its  torments  it  would  be  a  solace  to  know 
that  at  the  end  of  thousands  of  ages  there  would  be  some 
mitigation ;  but  such  is  the  horrible  nature  of  sin,  committed 
against  an  infinite  God,  that  then  the  end  of  punishment  will  be 
no  nearer  than  when  the  first  pang  was  endured.  The  words 
describing  its  eternal  continuance  are  as  explicit  and  as  full  of 
meaning  as  those  which  describe  the  eternal  duration  of  the 
saint's  felicity  at  the  right  hand  of  God.  Should  the  punish- 
ment seem  to  us  incommensurate  with  the  sin  punished,  our 
incapacity  to  appreciate  the  magnitude  of  the  guilt  of  sin  is 
thereby  proved,  but  nothing  more.  The  dreadful  truth  remains 
unshaken. 

The  thought  then  becomes  of  tremendous  moment  to  us,  Are 
we  indeed  sinners,  and  have  we  earned  such  wages?  If  so,  is 
there  no  way  by  which  the  wages  can  be  refused?  Have  we 
brought  upon  ourselves  the  wrath  of  an  Almighty  God?  Is 
escape  from  it  possible? 

When  with  sincerity  we  ask  ourselves  these  questions,  it 
usually  occurs  to  us  that  since  sin  is  the  cause  of  our  doomed 
condition,  we  must  stop  sinning.  And  then  the  attempt  at  self- 
reform  is  made.  But  suppose  we  can  and  do  succeed  in  this 
perfectly,  what  becomes  of  our  accounts  already  made  up? 
We  have  already  earned  death :  spotless  holiness  in  the  future 
by  itself  will  be  of  no  avail  in  undoing  what  is  already  done. 

Xor  will  it  better  serve  our  purpose  to  trust  in  God  as  a  God 
of  infinite  mercy,  as  one  too  full  of  love  to  visit  judgment,  and 
especially  eternal  punishment,  upon  his  frail  creatures.  This 
false,  baseless  hope  has  been  presented  to  our  race  in  one  form 
or  other  ever  since  the  serpent,  the  father  of  lies,  uttered  to  the 
woman  that  first  fatal  lie,  from  which  we  are  this  day  sufter- 
ing:  "Ye  shall  not  surely  lie."  It  is  equally  vain  and  impotent 
to  insure  safety  from  the  wrath  to  come,  when  it  is  put 
broadly,  sneeringly,  flatly,  as  a  direct  contradiction  to  the 
words  of  God,  and  when  we  try  to  persuade  ourselves  that  we 
are  honoring  him  by  charging  him  with  a  violation  of  his  own 
truth  in  attributing  to  him  this  all-forgiving  mercy.    This  is 


240 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


vile  incense,  it  is  an  abomination  to  him  when  offered  upon  his 
altars.  No;  in  this  sense,  God,  the  true  God,  with  whom  we 
have  to  do,  is  not  a  God  of  mercy.  He  testifies  this  to  us 
clearly  in  what  he  has  told  us  of  himself,  and  by  what  he  has 
shown  us  of  his  character  by  his  acts  which  he  has  recorded 
for  our  instruction.  Witness  the  fate  of  the  angels  who 
rebelled  against  him:  what  answer  do  we  receive,  if  we  ask 
these  first  dwellers  in  the  bottomless  pit  whether  or  not  the 
Supreme  Ruler  of  the  Universe  is  merciful  to  those  who  revolt 
against  his  authority?  Did  he  show  himself  a  God  of  mercy 
when  he  brought  a  flood  of  waters  upon  the  earth  to  destroy  all 
flesh  wherein  was  the  breath  of  life  from  under  heaven,  when 
the  corruption  of  all  flesh  thus  led  him  to  cause  everything  that 
was  in  the  earth  to  die?  Was  he  a  God  of  mercy,  forgetting 
his  threatenings,  when  he  multiplied  his  signs  and  his  wonders 
in  the  land  of  Egypt,  from  that  day  of  loathing  when  the  waters 
of  the  river  were  turned  to  blood,  to  that  night  of  agony  and 
terror,  when  every  mother  shrieked  forth  the  wail  of  anguish 
for  her  first-born  son;  or  to  that  morning  of  discomfiture  and 
dismay,  when  the  waters  of  the  divided  sea  returned  and 
covered  the  chariots  and  all  the  host  of  the  rebellious  Pharaoh, 
so  that  there  remained  not  so  much  as  one  of  them?  Was  it 
the  act  of  a  God  of  mercy,  who  disregards  the  requirements 
of  his  sternest  justice,  to  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  the  petition  of  his 
innocent  and  well-beloved  Son,  offered  again  and  again,  and 
again  more  earnestly,  even  in  an  agony,  "Father,  if  it  be  possi- 
ble, let  this  cup  pass  from  me."  But  time  would  fail  to  tell 
of  the  proofs  that  God  is  not  so  merciful,  if  that  be  mercy,  as 
to  suffer  his  laws  to  be  violated  with  impunity :  of  the  Canaan- 
ites,  on  whom  he  vindicated  his  justice,  and  evinced  his  hatred 
of  sin,  by  the  hand  of  Moses  and  Joshua ;  of  the  oft-repeated 
vengeance  visited  upon  his  own  chosen  people,  when  they  for- 
got him;  of  all  his  dealings  thus  with  the  children  of  men. 
And  all  his  representations  of  himself  in  words  agree  with  what 
is  so  easily  seen  in  these  acts. 

Nor  is  this  picture  softened  in  the  least  by  him  who  so  loved 
mankind  as  to  seal  his  love  with  his  death  and  its  attendant 
unutterable  sufferings.  It  would  indeed  ill  become  the  Son, 
who  sought  the  glory  of  him  that  sent  him,  to  dishonor  him  by 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


241 


holding  him  up  as  false  in  his  threatenings.  And  accordingly 
we  find  that  the  words  agree  with  the  life  and  death  of  the 
incarnate  Son  in  cutting  off  all  hope  that  the  God  who  is  angry 
with  the  wicked  every  day,  will  remit,  without  full  satisfaction, 
the  debt  due  his  broken  law.    No,  our  God  is  a  consuming  fire. 

But  while  this  is  all  fearfully  true,  we  need  not  be  without 
hope,  thanks  to  his  name  who  has  caused  mercy  and  truth  to 
meet  together.  In  the  latter  part  of  the  verse  in  which  our 
text  occurs,  the  remedy  is  presented  to  us.  (This  we  propose 
to  consider  this  afternoon.)  We  could  not  earn  for  ourselves 
the  needed  ransom ;  but  another  has  purchased  it  at  infinite 
cost  by  suffering  death  in  our  stead ;  now  he  stands  offering  it 
to  us  as  a  free  gift.  Have  you  all  accepted  this  gift,  this 
eternal  life  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord?  If  not,  let  me 
beseech  you  in  his  name,  now  to  accept  it,  to  abstain  from  the 
awful  sin  of  continued  unbelief,  to  receive  by  faith  the  precious 
boon  extended  to  you  by  the  arm  of  bleeding  love,  and  thus 
begin  to  live  the  only  real  life  of  happiness,  of  everlasting  bliss. 
God  forbid  that  any  one  of  us  should  realise  by  his  own  experi- 
ence the  full  meaning  of  the  death  which  he  has  appointed  as 
the  wages  of  sin. 

Have  you  received  this  gift?  Then  has  spiritual  death  no 
power  over  you.  Though  you  once  had  the  understanding 
darkened,  being  alienated  from  the  life  of  God  through  the 
ignorance  that  was  in  you,  because  of  the  blindness  of  your 
hearts,  yet  now  have  you  been  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  your 
minds  and  have  put  on  the  new  man,  which  after  God  is  created 
in  righteousness  and  true  holiness.  Though  you  were  dead  in 
trespasses  and  sins,  yet  God,  who  is  rich  in  mercy,  hath  quick- 
ened you  together  with  Christ,  and  hath  raised  you  up  together, 
and  made  you  sit  together  in  heavenly  places  in  Christ  Jesus. 
And  instead  of  enduring  eternal  death  and  the  pains  of  hell 
forever,  you  will  learn  that  the  Saviour  has  suffered  all  the 
penalties  of  God's  violated  law  for  you. 

If  Christ  has  received  the  wages  due  us,  and  offers  us  as  a 
gift  the  glory  due  himself,  let  us  look  forward  with  joy  to  that 
day  when  "the  Lord  himself  shall  descend  from  heaven  with  a 
shout,  with  the  voice  of  the  archangel,  and  with  the  trump  of 
God ;  when  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first,  when  we  which 


16— w 


242 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


are  alive  and  remain  shall  be  caught  up  together  with  them  in 
the  clouds  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air ;  and  so  shall  we  ever 
be  with  the  Lord,"  and  so,  free  from  death,  enjoy  forever  the 
blessedness  of  those  who  are  called  unto  the  marriage  supper 
of  the  Lamb. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


243 


Sermon. 


Romans  6:23  (latter  clause).  The  gift  of  God  is  eternal  life  through 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 

W e  saw  this  morning  the  sad  state  into  which  man  is  brought 
by  committing  sin,  that  he  has  justly  earned  death.  He  is 
indeed  already  dead,  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins ;  his  "under- 
standing is  darkened,  being  alienated  from  the  life  of  God 
through  the  ignorance  that  is  in  him,  because  of  the  blindness 
of  his  heart."  He  is  suffering  all  the  pains  of  this  life,  and  is 
constantly  exposed  to  natural  death,  as  part  of  the  penalty  to 
be  inflicted.  And  he  knows  or  may  know  that  then  the  death 
eternal  begins  with  all  its  unmitigated  horrors. 

But,  angry  as  he  is  with  the  wicked,  and  pledged  as  his 
justice  is  to  their  punishment  to  the  uttermost,  God  has  not  left 
us  without  hope,  but  stands  offering  to  us — doomed  to  death 
as  we  are — life,  eternal  life  as  a  gift;  and  if  we  die,  it  will  be 
only  after  rejecting  his  free  offer  of  this  undeserved  boon. 

Let  us  consider  what  is  the  nature  of  the  life  spoken  of  in 
our  text,  how  it  is  that  God,  a  God  of  justice  and  of  truth  can 
give  it  to  those  who  have  earned  death ;  and  then,  how  we  may 
obtain  the  gift  for  ourselves. 

You  observe  that  the  life  mentioned  in  the  latter  clause  of  the 
verse  is  contrasted  with  the  death  in  the  former  clause.  Eter- 
nal life,  then,  denotes  freedom  from  all  that  we  found  consti- 
tuting that  death.  That  included,  in  the  first  place,  spiritual 
death,  which  consists  in  the  corruption  of  the  whole  nature,  in 
the  love  of  sin  and  hatred  of  holiness,  in  rebellion  and  enmity 
against  God's  authority,  and  in  a  willing  bondage  to  Satan. 
Life  from  this  death  must  imply  the  regeneration  and  sanctifi- 
cation  of  the  whole  nature,  so  that  sin  will  be  hated  and  loathed, 
and  holiness  loved ;  the  willing  slaves  of  Satan  will  be  made 
free  from  the  vile  bondage,  and  will  become  loyal  to  God,  their 
rightful  Sovereign. 

In  the  next  place,  the  penalty  for  sin  included  all  the  suffer- 
ings of  this  life  and  natural  death.  To  the  possessors  of  eternal 
life  these  remain  in  form,  but  are  wholly  changed  in  character. 
They  are  no  longer  penal,  but  disciplinary.    From  being  proofs 


244 


DR.  JAMES  WOODRGW. 


of  his  anger  towards  us,  they  become,  by  a  wonderful  change, 
proofs  of  his  paternal  love.  For  "whom  the  Lord  loveth  he 
chasteneth,  and  scourgeth  every  son  whom  he  receiveth."  He 
has  taught  us  to  say,  "Blessed  is  the  man  whom  thou  chasteneth, 
O  Lord,  and  teachest  him  out  of  thy  law."  The  strokes  from 
which  we  shrink,  the  pains  we  dread,  the  sorrows  that  afflict, 
all  become  rich  blessings  to  those  who  receive  the  gift  of  God. 
They  wean  the  affections  from  the  sordid  things  of  earth ;  they 
bring  the  stubborn  will  into  subjection  to  the  will  of  the  divine 
Master,  they  lead  away  from  real  evil,  and  conduct  to  the 
enjoyment  of  all  real  good.  Thus  may  we  come  even  to 
rejoice  in  tribulation,  "knowing  that  tribulation  worketh 
patience,  and  patience  experience,  and  experience  hope;  and 
hope  maketh  not  ashamed,  because  the  love  of  God  is  shed 
abroad  in  our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  given  unto 
us."  Are  not  temporal  afflictions,  then,  rich  blessings  when 
they  bear  such  fruits  as  these? 

Natural  death,  too,  which  before  was  the  king  of  terrors  and 
the  type  of  all  that  the  human  heart  dreads,  is  overcome  and  is 
deprived  of  its  sting;  and  strange  to  say,  though  still  attended 
by  much  that  causes  brief  sorrow,  is  transformed  into  one  of 
our  best  friends.  Do  we  not  welcome  as  a  friend  him  who 
frees  us  from  suffering  and  from  sorrow?  Then  must  we 
welcome  death  with  rapturous  delight.  It  is  the  door  through 
which  we  escape  from  all  the  sorrows  of  earth  and  enter  upon 
the  joys  of  heaven.  It  tears  away  the  veil  which  had  been 
concealing  from  us  a  clearer  view  of  our  blessed  Lord,  and 
introduces  us  immediately  into  his  glorious  presence. 

In  the  next  place,  those  who  receive  this  gift  will  be  free 
from  the  second  death,  from  the  everlasting  pains  of  hell,  from 
suffering  the  eternal  vengeance  of  a  justly  incensed  God. 

To  them  who  are  thus  freed  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death, 
there  is  no  condemnation,  and  there  remains  not  even  the 
appearance  of  it ;  even  the  chastenings  of  a  loving  Father  cease, 
and  every  tear  is  wiped  away  from  the  weeping  eyes.  But  it 
is  not  so  much  the  freedom  from  punishment  that  characterises 
the  life  to  come;  it  is  the  positive  and  ever  increasing  enjoyment 
of  God  and  our  Redeemer,  and  our  being  brought  perfectly  into 
conformity  with  the  image  of  our  holy  Lord.    Here  indeed  we 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


245 


must  cease  to  be  carnally  minded  and  become  spiritually 
minded,  for  to  be  carnally  minded  is  death ;  here  we  must  be 
transformed  by  the  renewing  of  our  mind.  But  the  transfor- 
mation is  not  complete :  there  is  a  law  in  the  members  warring 
against  the  law  of  the  mind,  bringing  into  captivity  to  the  law 
of  sin.  And  the  struggle  with  the  body  of  this  death  is  to  be 
kept  up  through  all  the  weary  days  we  spend  upon  the  earth. 
But  there,  in  the  life  to  come,  there  is  perfect  freedom  from 
this  struggle.  The  holiness  that  is  implanted  in  the  heart  here, 
there  pervades  every  faculty.  Here  it  is  the  germ,  there  it 
becomes  the  full-grown  plant.  Here  it  is  the  bud,  often  almost 
concealed  from  view ;  there  it  becomes  the  fragrant  and  beaute- 
ous flower.  "Now  we  see  through  a  glass  darkly,  but  then 
face  to  face ;  now  we  know  in  part,  but  then  shall  we  know  even 
as  also  we  are  known."  (1  Cor.  13:12).  "Behold,  now  are 
we  the  sons  of  God,  and  it  doth  not  appear  what  we  shall  be  ; 
but  we  know  that  when  he  shall  appear,  we  shall  be  like  him, 
for  we  shall  see  him  as  he  is."  (1  John  3:2  V  Thus  every 
blessing  which  results  from  being  forever  in  the  presence  of 
God,  beholding  his  glory  and  being  made  like  him,  is  included 
in  this  gift.  And  from  the  manner  in  which  it  has  been  pro- 
vided, he  who  receives  this,  receives  with  it  every  joy  which 
the  Father  can  bestow  for  the  Son's  sake,  in  whom  he  delights. 
He  who  receives  it  comes  to  occupy  in  the  Father's  love  a  place 
with  the  only  begotten  and  well-beloved  Son  himself,  who  con- 
descends to  be  called  the  "first-born  among  many  brethren." 
What  delight  will  he  withhold  from  his  brethren?  His  love 
towards  them  is  boundless,  and  nothing  restrains  his  power 
from  bestowing  upon  them  whatever  he  will,  "for  by  him  were 
all  things  created  that  are  in  heaven  and  that  are  in  earth, 
visible  and  invisible,  whether  they  be  thrones  or  dominions  or 
principalities  or  powers ;  all  things  are  created  by  him  and  for 
him." 

But  how  is  it  possible  for  a  God  of  inflexible  justice. — whose 
righteous  indignation  has  brought  the  sinner  into  the  deep 
wretchedness  which  we  were  contemplating  this  morning, — 
how  is  it  possible  for  such  a  God,  consistently  with  his  holiness, 
his  truth,  and  his  justice,  to  raise  one  who  has  violated  his  law 
to  such  a  state  of  blessedness  and  glory  ?    How  can  he  bestow 


246 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


such  a  gift  on  beings  whom  his  own  law  has  doomed  to  eternal 
death?  The  answer  we  find  in  the  last  words  of  the  text: 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 

Familiar  as  it  may  be  to  our  minds,  let  us  again  contemplate 
briefly  the  leading  features  of  this  wonderful  plan  of  God's 
grace  whereby  he  can  offer  salvation  to  the  lost  sinner. 

As  the  sinner  is  a  condemned  criminal,  and  condemned  by  a 
law  which  knows  no  pardon,  provision  must  be  made  whereby 
the  sentence  shall  be  executed  and  yet  the  condemned  one  be 
unpunished.  This  seeming  impossibility  is  accomplished  by  the 
Son  of  God  voluntarily  suffering  in  his  own  person  the  penalty 
of  the  violated  law.  The  Author  of  the  law,  of  whose  holy 
nature  it  is  the  expression,  accepts  the  sufferings  and  death  of 
his  incarnate  Son  as  a  full  satisfaction ;  and  now  the  same 
justice  and  holiness  and  truth  which  before  demanded  payment 
of  all  that  was  due  to  the  uttermost,  secure  certain  immunity 
from  punishment  to  all  those  in  whose  place  stood  the  Sufferer 
on  Calvary/  They  have  already  paid  the  penalty  in  the  person 
of  their  glorious  Substitute.  And  while  the  remission  of 
further  punishment  is  pardon  and  mercy  to  them,  it  is  justice 
to  him  who  suffered  death  in  their  stead,  and  who  can  therefore 
claim  that  it  shall  not  be  inflicted  a  second  time. 

But  mere  remission  of  punishment,  important  as  it  is,  is  by 
no  means  all  that  is  needed  or  all  that  Christ  Jesus  procures. 
If  this  were  all,  then  this  gift  could  not  be  called  eternal  life  in 
any  sense,  for  our  first  parents  in  the  estate  in  which  they  were 
created,  were  not  exposed  to  any  punishment,  and  yet  certainly 
had  not  eternal  life.  One  who  is  pardoned  merely,  is  only  in 
their  condition,  with  this  exception,  that  they  were  innocent  in 
nature,  while  the  pardoned  one,  if  the  change  extend  no  farther, 
is  corrupt  and  wholly  inclined  to  evil.  He  must  fall  again  into 
sin,  which  will  again  bring  the  curse  upon  him.  Had  our  first 
parents  continued  in  the  estate  wherein  they  were  created  and 
lived  righteously  before  God  during  all  their  period  of  proba- 
tion, then  they  would  by  their  works  have  secured  for 
themselves  eternal  life.  This  we  cannot  do.  But  Christ's 
work  extended  farther  than  to  the  enduring  of  the  punishment 
due  to  the  sinner.  As  the  guilt  of  the  sinner's  transgression 
was  imputed  to  Christ  and  he  suffered  the  death  resulting  from 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


247 


it,  so  the  righteousness  of  Christ, — his  obedience  to  the  law, — 
is  imputed  to  the  sinner  and  he  reaps  its  reward.  In  this  sense 
it  is  said,  "by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many  be  made  righte- 
ous." (Rom.  5  :19.)  "Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righte- 
ousness to  every  one  that  believeth."  (Rom.  10:4.)  Both 
parts  of  the  doctrine  are  presented  in  the  passage,  "He  hath 
made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who  knew  no  sin,  that  we  might  be 
made  the  righteousness  of  God  in  him."  (2  Cor.  5:21.) 
Thus,  then,  Christ  may  claim  as  an  act  of  justice  the  bestowal 
of  the  love  and  favor  of  God  upon  all  whom  he  chooses  as  his 
people,  he  may  claim  for  them  a  share  in  all  the  blessedness  and 
glory  of  heaven,  justice  to  himself,  not  to  the  sinner;  all  the 
latter  receives  flows  from  free,  unmerited  grace. 

But  even  yet  the  work  is  incomplete.  Should  it  be  left  here, 
who  is  it  that  is  thus  pardoned  and  entitled  to  the  favor  of  God 
and  the  bliss  of  heaven,  for  the  sake  of  the  imputed  righteous- 
ness of  Jesus  ?  One  who  is  still  spiritually  dead,  to  whom  the 
robe  of  spotless  righteousness  must  be  oppressive  indeed,  who 
may  be  rejoicing  that  he  has  escaped  the  torments  of  hell,  but 
who  sees  nothing  to  delight  him  in  the  holiness  which  shines 
all  around  him.  Shall  one  who  has  been  justified  and  adopted 
into  the  number  of  the  sons  of  God  continue  under  the  power 
of  sin  ?  How  can  one  who  is  a  son  still  be  an  alien  ?  No,  the 
work  is  not  left  in  this  unfinished  state,  but  Christ  is  made 
sanctification  also  to  all  whom  he  justifies.  The  soul  is  not  left 
dead,  but  is  born  again,  is  born  of  the  Spirit,  and  becomes  a 
new  creature.  Nor  is  it  left  without  provision  for  its  growth 
in  holiness.  Jesus  has  given  the  word  of  truth,  through  which 
his  prayer  to  the  Father  is  answered:  "Sanctify  them  through 
thy  truth;  thy  word  is  truth."  (John  17:17.)  His  other 
prayer  to  the  Father  is  also  answered,  that  he  shall  give  another 
Comforter,  that  he  may  abide  forever  with  him  who  has  been 
born  again,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth.  Thus  the  soul  that  has 
been  pardoned  and  clothed  with  the  imputed  righteousness  of 
Christ  is,  by  its  vital  union  with  him,  by  the  regenerating  power 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  the  indwelling  of  the  same  blessed  Spirit 
and  the  efficacy  of  the  truth  of  God,  brought  to  possess  that 
inherent  holiness  without  which  we  cannot  see  God,  without 


248 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


which  the  presence  and  the  society  of  holy  beings  would  be 
intolerable. 

Thus  is  "Christ  Jesus  made  unto  us  wisdom  and  righteous- 
ness and  salification  and  redemption."  (1  Cor.  1:30.)  Thus 
it  becomes  possible  for  God,  much  as  he  abhors  sin,  to  bestow 
as  a  free  gift  eternal  life  in  all  its  fulness :  to  remit  the  penalty 
due  to  the  sinner,  because  his  own  Son  has  paid  it ;  to  love  and 
cherish  him  who  has  times  innumerable  offended  him  and  for 
long  years  been  a  rebel  against  his  authority,  because  of  the 
perfect  robe  of  Jesus'  righteousness  and  of  his  merits  with 
which  he  sees  him  clothed ;  to  welcome  him  to  the  now  con- 
genial society  of  heaven  and  to  permit  him  to  gaze  with  rapture 
on  the  glories  of  his  own  face  and  to  grow  in  likeness  to  him, 
because  of  the  living  union  which  has  been  constituted  between 
his  well-beloved  Son  and  the  recipient  of  these  unspeakable 
favors.  That  which  is  perhaps  strangest  of  all,  is  that  now,  so 
far  is  it  from  being  impossible  for  God  consistently  with  his 
justice  to  bestow  such  blessings  on  sinners  all  covered  with 
guilt  of  the  deepest  dye,  his  justice,  so  fully  satisfied  by  Jesus 
Christ,  demands  that  they  shall  be  bestowed  upon  all  for  whom 
he  has  died,  for  whom  he  has  wrought  out  a  righteousness,  and 
whom  he  has  so  united  to  himself  that  they  are  one  with  him, 
not  merely  in  relation,  but  in  character. 

Let  us  see,  in  the  next  place,  how  it  is  possible  to  procure  this 
gift  for  ourselves,  now  that  it  has  been  so  beautifully  and  freely 
provided.  How  may  we  come  to  be  in  Christ,  so  that  his  merits 
and  character  shall  become  ours,  while  all  our  guilt  is  trans- 
ferred to  him?  This  is  the  great  question  which  surpasses  in 
importance  every  other  that  can  be  asked.  The  answer  we 
have  heard  a  thousand  times :  it  is  through  faith  in  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  who  has  provided  the  gift.  It  is  by  this  simple 
means  that  we  may  obtain  it  for  ourselves ;  not  by  arduous  toil, 
not  by  a  life  of  penance,  of  self-imposed  suffering,  but  simply 
by  a  willingness  to  receive  it  and  to  confide  in  him  through 
whom  it  is  offered  to  us. 

Were  it  not  for  our  blindness  to  the  enormity  of  our  guilt 
and  to  our  inability  to  merit  the  least  favor  from  the  God  who 
has  condemned  us,  it  could  never  be  necessary  to  point  out  the 
folly  of  striving  by  some  good  works  of  our  own  to  secure 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


249 


for  ourselves  the  priceless  gift,  or  at  least  to  supplement  the 
merits  of  the  Redeemer,  so  that  the  eternal  life  shall  not  be 
entirely  a  gift,  but  only  partially  so,  only  as  far  as  may  be 
needful  to  make  up  what  is  lacking  in  our  good  deeds,  so  that 
our  deserts  and  the  Redeemer's  together  it  is  that  shall  consti- 
tute a  proper  satisfaction  to  divine  justice.  And  yet  who  of 
us  has  not  made  this  fruitless  attempt?  Who  has  not  shown 
his  unwillingness  to  receive  life  thus  gratuitously?  Who  has 
ever  consented  that  it  should  be  bestowed  upon  him,  without 
having  first  failed  in  many  efforts  to  procure  its  blessings  as  his 
own  right,  as  the  reward  of  his  own  goodness  ?  The  impossi- 
bility of  effecting  aught  thus  we  saw  this  morning.  If  we 
neglect  the  only  way  prescribed,  so  honoring  to  the  free  grace 
of  God,  so  humbling  to  our  sinful  pride,  then  as  despisers  of 
the  "riches  of  his  goodness  and  forbearance  and  longsuffering, 
*  *  *  after  our  hardness  and  impenitent  heart,  we  treasure  up 
unto  ourselves  wrath  against  the  day  of  wrath  and  revelation 
of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God,  who  will  render  to  every 
man  according  to  his  deeds."  (Rom.  2  :4,  5,  6.)  The  mere  fact 
that  eternal  life  has  been  provided,  to  be  offered  as  a  gift,  is 
of  no  benefit  to  us  unless  the  gift  becomes  ours.  Indeed,  it 
would  be  infinitely  better  for  us  that  Christ  had  never  died,  or 
that  we  had  never  heard  of  what  he  has  done,  unless  we  accept 
by  faith  that  which  he  offers. 

When  the  God  of  Israel  was  about  to  bring  his  people  out  of 
Egyptian  bondage,  he  provided  for  them  a  sure  protection 
against  the  destruction  he  brought  upon  Egypt.  Were  the 
lintel  and  the  two  side  posts  of  the  door  sprinkled  with  the 
blood  of  the  paschal  lamb,  the  Lord  passed  over  the  door,  and 
suffered  not  the  destroyer  to  come  in  unto  their  houses  to  smite. 
But  of  what  avail  was  this  safeguard,  if  the  prescribed  sprink- 
ling were  neglected?  In  such  a  case  the  destroyer,  unre- 
strained, entered  and  smote ;  that  soul  was  cut  off  from  Israel. 

As  the  same  people  were  journeying  towards  the  promised 
Canaan,  much  discouraged  because  of  the  way,  opposed  at 
almost  every  step  by  enemies  without,  forced  to  subsist  upon 
food  which  they  loathed,  they  spake  against  God  and  against 
his  servant,  Moses.  To  punish  their  wicked  murmuring,  the 
Lord  sent  among  them  fiery  serpents,  and  they  bit  the  people, 


250 


DR.  JAMES  WOOD  ROW. 


and  much  people  of  Israel  died.  When  they  were  brought  to 
repentance,  the  Lord,  ever  merciful,  said  unto  Moses,  "Make 
thee  a  fiery  serpent,  and  set  it  upon  a  pole;  and  it  shall  come 
to  pass,  that  every  one  that  is  bitten,  when  he  looketh  upon  it, 
shall  live."  But  of  what  avail  was  this  brazen  serpent  to  one 
who  would  refuse  to  look  upon  it?  Of  none;  the  fact  that  it 
had  been  set  up  as  a  remedy  would  only  serve  to  increase  his 
tortures,  until  his  writhing  agonies  would  introduce  him  into 
the  presence  of  the  God  whose  mercy  he  had  despised.  These 
were  types  of  the  salvation  which  is  now  so  freely  offered  to 
us.  "He  that  despised  Moses'  law  died  without  mercy  under 
two  or  three  witnesses.  Of  how  much  sorer  punishment,  sup- 
pose ye,  shall  he  be  thought  worthy  who  hath  trodden  under 
foot  the  Son  of  God,  and  hath  counted  the  blood  of  the  cove- 
nant, wherewith  he  was  sanctified,  an  unholy  thing,  and  hath 
done  despite  unto  the  Spirit  of  grace?"  (Heb.  10:28,  29.) 
"If  they  escaped  not  who  refused  him  that  spake  on  earth, 
much  more  shall  not  we  escape,  if  we  turn  away  from  him  that 
speaketh  from  heaven."    (Heb.  12:25.) 

But  instead  of  considering  further  the  consequences  of  fail- 
ing to  exercise  faith,  let  us  think  rather  of  the  results  which 
faith  will  produce.  It  is,  as  we  have  seen,  the  instrument  by 
which  we  receive  and  apply  Christ  and  his  righteousness.  But 
besides  the  great  central  blessings  involved  in  this,  there  are 
innumerable  others  clustering  around  them.  Do  we  need  a 
friend  whom  we  can  love  with  all  the  heart,  and  in  whose  love 
we  can  rest  without  fear  of  change?  Into  whose  ear  we  can 
pour  all  our  complaints  and  sorrows,  sure  of  all  the  sympathy 
we  seek?  Such  a  one  will  Jesus  be  to  us,  in  whom,  the  more 
fully  we  know  him,  the  more  we  will  see  to  love  as  well  as  to 
adore.  And  in  this  love  we  will  find  happiness  without  a 
bound.  We  have  been  harassed  with  anxieties  and  fears  in 
consequence  of  the  terrible  thought  that  the  almighty  God  was 
our  enemy;  whatever  earthly  joy  might  be  ours  for  the  time, 
this  overshadowing  and  oppressive  thought  has  checked  every 
gush  of  delight,  and  filled  us  with  apprehension  and  gloom. 
And  when  one  may  have  determined  by  tumultuous  revelry  to 
banish  the  dark  cloud,  his  success  has  been  at  best  but  indiffer- 
ent and  momentary.    But  if  we  are  in  Christ  Jesus,  "we  who 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


251 


sometimes  were  far  off  are  made  nigh  by  his  blood ;  for  he  Is 
our  peace,  who  hath  made  both  one,  and  hath  broken  down  the 
middle  wall  of  partition  between  us,  having  abolished  in  his 
flesh  the  enmity,  *  *  *  for  to  make  in  himself  of  twain  one 
new  man,  so  making  peace ;  and  that  he  might  reconcile  both 
unto  God  in  one  body  by  the  cross,  having  slain  the  enmity  in 
himself."  (Eph.  2:13  to  16.)  This  peace,  thus  made  with 
God,  can  never  be  broken.  Whatever  may  disturb  or  threaten 
from  without,  the  consciousness  that  God  is  our  friend  will 
prevent  one  anxious  care  or  fear,  and  will  fill  with  calm,  unin- 
terrupted eternal  joy. 


252 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


The  Presbyterian  Doctrine  of  the  Bible. 

An  Address  Delivered  Aug.  14,  1886,  During  the  Centen- 
nial Celebration  at  Bethany  Church,  Augusta 
Presbytery. 


When  I  received  the  invitation  through  your  beloved  pastor, 
once  my  pupil,  to  take  part  in  these  exercises,  I  was  feeble  and 
already  overwhelmed  with  work  I  must  do,  and  therefore  it 
seemed  to  me  that  I  would  be  forced  to  decline.  But  almost 
immediately  there  arose  a  desire  to  accept  it,  which  soon  became 
too  strong  to  be  resisted,  especially  in  view  of  the  subjects  on 
which  I  was  asked  to  address  you — subjects  of  fundamental 
importance  which  I  have  been  teaching  ever  since,  more  than  a 
quarter  of  a  century  ago,  I  was  licensed  to  preach  the  gospel  by 
this  Presbytery  convened  at  Greensboro,  only  a  few  miles  from 
where  we  are  now  assembled.  And  so  I  have  come  to  set 
before  you  as  well  as  I  can  some  of  the  truths  I  have  not 
hitherto  been  permitted  to  present  to  you  in  person,  but  which 
I  have  long  been  teaching  to  your  teachers  and  otherwise  press- 
ing on  your  own  notice. 

If  you  were  asked,  What  is  this  Presbyterianism  of  which 
you  are  now  celebrating  the  establishment  in  this  community 
one  hundred  years  ago?  I  suppose  your  answer  would  be,  It  is 
that  system  of  doctrine  and  church  order  which  is  set  forth 
in  the  Bible — the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testa- 
ments. What,  then,  could  be  more  appropriate  to  this  occasion 
than  a  consideration  of  the  views  and  beliefs  of  Presbyterians 
respecting  the  Bible  which  is  the  foundation  of  all  else; — or, 
as  the  subject  of  this  address  has  been  announced,  "The  Pres- 
byterian Doctrine  of  the  Bible"? 

What  is  this  Bible,  on  which  our  system  of  religion  is  based  ? 
Whence  does  it  derive  that  supreme  authority  to  which  we  bow 
with  unquestioning  submission?  And  since  we  do  regard  its 
authority  as  supreme,  how  are  we  to  know  exactly  what  it 
commands  and  what  it  forbids — in  a  word,  what  it  teaches — 
that  we  may  be  sure  that,  when  we  think  we  are  loyally  obey- 
ing its  precepts,  we  may  not  be  grossly  violating  them  and 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


253 


setting  them  at  naught?  These  and  like  questions  it  is  pro- 
posed now  to  answer. 

It  is  no  part  of  my  design  to  defend  our  doctrine  of  the  Bible, 
except  as  this  may  be  done  incidentally,  but  merely  to  state  it. 
At  the  same  time,  as  you  doubtless  have  observed,  the  clear 
statement  of  a  truth  often  constitutes  its  strongest  defence. 

To  the  first  question  I  would  reply:  THE  BIBLE  IS  THE 
WORD  OF  GOD. 

Observe.  I  do  not  say.  as  some  do,  that  the  Bible  contains  the 
word  of  God,  but  that  it  is  the  word  of  God.  It  sometimes 
happens  that  we  can  best  explain  our  meaning  by  comparing 
and  contrasting  what  we  say  with  the  utterances  of  others  on 
the  same  subject.  I  ask  you,  then,  to  notice  carefully  the 
difference  between  the  two  expressions  just  used.  All  who 
claim  to  be  Christian  believers  would  agree  that  the  Bible 
contains  the  word  of  God ;  but  some  would  go  on  to  say,  Yes, 
it  contains  his  word,  but  contains  also  more  or  less  of  what  is 
not  his  word.  Hence  some  authority,  other  than  the  Bible 
itself,  would  be  needed  to  decide  which  parts  are  his  word,  and 
which  are  not.  With  some  this  higher  authority  is  the  Church  ; 
with  others,  it  is  reason.  In  the  latter  case  each  reader  must 
select  for  himself  those  parts  which  are  approved  by  his  sense 
of  right  and  justice  and  truth ;  whatever  his  reason  does  not 
approve  must  be  rejected  as  no  part  of  God's  word. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  say  that  the  Bible  is  God's  word ; 
meaning  thereby  that  every  word  and  syllable  in  the  Bible,  as 
first  written,  from  beginning  to  end.  comes  from  God  and  there- 
fore is  absolutely  true;  and  that  the  office  of  reason  is,  not  to 
sit  in  judgment  upon  what  is  found  there,  but  solely  to  seek 
to  learn  what  is  the  true  meaning  of  every  part.  And  further, 
that  the  Church  is  equally  powerless  with  reason  to  decide  that 
anything  found  in  the  Bible  is  no  part  of  the  word  of  God. 

I  would  next  ask,  How  has  it  pleased  God  to  give  us  this 
word?  Has  he  written  it  with  his  own  finger  on  tables  of 
stone,  or  uttered  it  in  an  audible  voice  in  the  hearing  of  his 
people?  A  few  sentences  indeed  he  so  gave,  though  we  have 
only  a  record  made  by  man  of  even  these.  But  with  these 
exceptions,  he  gave  it  indirectly,  mediately,  through  men.  his 
servants,  in  various  ages  of  the  world.    These  he  inspired  to 


254 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


write  down  what  he  would  make  known.  Do  you  ask  what  it 
is  to  inspire — what  inspiration  is?  I  greatly  doubt  whether  a 
full  answer  can  be  given;  but  it  need  not  surprise  us  that  we 
can  give  no  clear  account  of  how  God  with  unerring  accuracy 
communicates  his  thoughts  to  us,  when  we  remember  how 
little  we  know  of  the  mode  by  which  we  communicate  our 
thoughts  to  one  another.  But  so  much  we  know:  that  the 
words  of  those  whom  he  inspired  he  so  controlled  that  they 
exactly  expressed  his  thoughts  and  so  were  his  words ;  and  that 
the  inspired  writer  "was  incapable  of  uttering  or  communicat- 
ing any  error  with  the  inspired  message." 

But  yet  is  it  not  true  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  writings  of 
men  ?  Have  we  not  the  words  of  Moses,  of  Isaiah,  of  John,  of 
Paul?  Is  not  each  of  the  books  making  up  the  Bible  in  the 
style  of  its  human  writer,  exhibiting  his  use  of  language,  his 
peculiarities  of  expression,  of  feeling,  and  of  thought?  Yes; 
undoubtedly  this  is  all  true.  But  it  is  not  inconsistent  with 
what  we  asserted  before — that  every  word  is  God's.  Perhaps 
we  may  be  helped  to  see  that  there  is  no  inconsistency  by  a 
somewhat  parallel  case.  We  are  commanded  to  work  out  our 
own  salvation ;  and  if  we  are  Christians,  we  shall  do  it.  But 
it  is  only  as  God  works  in  us  that  we  can  do  aught ;  so  that  all 
the  works  we  do,  effecting  our  salvation,  are  God's  works.  So 
here :  the  words  are  indeed  man's ;  but  in  an  infinitely  higher 
sense  they  are  God's. 

It  would  be  vain  to  attempt  to  comprehend  this  mystery; 
but  perhaps  an  illustration  may  aid  us  in  seeing  at  least  the 
direction  in  which  the  truth  lies.  When  you  are  delivering  a 
message  intrusted  to  you  by  a  friend,  the  words  will  be  uttered 
in  your  voice,  with  your  pronunciation,  in  all  respects  in  your 
style  of  speaking.  If  you  write  the  words,  the  handwriting  will 
be  yours,  characterised  by  all  the  marks  which  would  belong  to 
it  if  employed  to  put  down  words  that  had  originated  in  your 
own  mind.  Somehow  thus  it  may  be  also  with  the  mental  and 
other  characteristics  of  the  prophet  or  apostle  through  whom 
God  gives  us  his  word,  as  well  as  with  the  physical  peculiari- 
ties of  the  messenger — the  voice,  the  style  of  speaking,  the 
handwriting,  and  the  like.  But  however  this  may  be,  every 
single  word  is  God's  word — one  of  those  which  he  hath  spoken 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


255 


by  the  mouth  of  all  his  holy  prophets  since  the  world  began ; 
and  with  that  I  am  content. 

I  may  ask,  in  the  next  place,  how  do  we  know  that  this  Bible 
is  the  word  of  God?  To  this  question,  many  answers,  more  or 
less  satisfactory,  may  be  given ;  but  of  these  I  shall  present  only 
a  few. 

Examining  the  Bible,  we  see  that  it  is  made  up  of  a  collection 
of  books  claiming  to  have  been  written  by  various  authors,  who 
lived  at  various  periods,  chiefly  in  lands  bordering  on  the  east- 
ern and  northeastern  shores  of  the  Mediterranean. 

Now  we  may  inquire  into  the  evidence  supporting  these 
claims  just  as  we  would  respecting  books  claiming  to  have  been 
written  by  Caesar  and  Cicero,  Thucydides  and  Xenophon. 
Going  backwards  step  by  step  from  to-day,  we  find  the  evidence 
so  strong  that  these  Roman  and  Grecian  authors  wrote  the 
books  attributed  to  them  that  no  one  thinks  of  doubting  it. 
When  we  apply  the  same  means  of  investigation  to  the  books 
of  the  Bible,  the  evidence  is  vastly  fuller  and  stronger  than  in 
the  case  of  the  classical  works  I  have  referred  to;  it  is  abso- 
lutely irresistible  so  far  as  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  are 
concerned,  and  thoroughly  convincing  as  to  those  of  the  Old 
Testament  as  well.  I  have  not  devoted  very  much  of  my  own 
life  to  this  kind  of  investigation;  but  I  have  gone  far  enough 
to  see  for  myself  that  the  amount  and  kind  of  evidence  are  such 
as  to  leave  the  unbeliever  without  excuse. 

When  we  have  learned  that  the  books  were  really  written  by 
the  persons  to  whom  they  are  attributed,  and  that  these  persons 
really  performed  the  acts  attributed  to  them,  then  we  have 
reached  the  end  of  our  inquiry ;  for  no  man  could  do  the 
miracles  that  they  did,  except  God  were  with  him.  By  such 
reasoning  the  fact  has  been  established  that  the  books  were 
written  as  claimed ;  and  the  works  which  they  did  bore  witness 
of  them  that  God  had  sent  them  to  make  known  his  will. 

For  my  own  part,  I  would  not  care  to  carry  on  this  historical 
investigation  beyond  the  books  of  the  New  Testament;  for 
when  the  truth  of  these  has  been  established,  it  has  at  the  same 
time  been  established  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  and 
is  himself  God,  and  therefore  that  his  utterances  are  the  highest 
and  best  testimony  we  could  have  to  any  truth. 


256 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Now,  in  every  possible  way,  in  the  strongest,  most  unmis- 
takable language,  he  asserted  the  truth  of  the  "Scriptures,"  of 
the  "law,"  the  "Psalms,"  the  "prophets,"  "Moses  and  the 
prophets,"  the  "WORD."  We  know  with  certainty  what  was 
meant  by  these  terms  in  the  days  of  Jesus  Christ,  namely,  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  as  we  now  have  them.  The 
watchful  jealousy  of  Jews  and  Christians  over  these  books 
ever  since  those  days  leaves  no  room  for  doubt  on  this  point. 
Both  have  claimed  these  Scriptures  as  their  own;  and  nothing 
could  have  been  added  to  them  or  taken  from  them  without 
detection  by  this  lynx-eyed  vigilance.  Of  these  books,  then, 
Jesus  Christ  said  that  "till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or 
one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be  ful- 
filled ;"  that  what  is  there  to  be  read  "was  spoken  by  God ;" 
that  in  them  David  spoke  by  the  Holy  Ghost ;  that  "the  scrip- 
tures must  be  fulfilled ;"  that  "it  is  easier  for  heaven  and  earth 
to  pass,  than  one  tittle  of  the  law  to  fail ;"  that  in  them  "the 
word  of  God  came,  and  the  scripture  cannot  be  broken." 
Besides  giving  his  testimony  directly  as  in  the  words  I  have 
just  quoted  and  others  like  them,  he  gave  equally  strong  testi- 
mony indirectly,  by  constantly  assuming  in  everything  he  said 
that  these  Scriptures  are  the  very  word  of  God. 

Therefore,  I  repeat  it,  whenever  it  has  been  proved  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  trustworthy,  to  me  the  question  as  to  the  char- 
acter and  trustworthiness  of  the  Old  Testament  has  lost  all 
interest ;  for  I  know  that  it  is  the  word  of  God  as  surely  as  I 
know  that  the  blessed  Jesus,  the  Way  and  the  Life,  is  also  the 
TRUTH. 

With  regard  to  the  testimony  of  the  Church  to  the  fact  that 
the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God,  I  would  say  that  but  little  import- 
ance is  to  be  attached  to  it,  except  so  far  as  it  forms  part  of 
that  general  historical  testimony  which  has  already  been  spoken 
of.  We  very  properly  respect  and  revere  that  which  has  been 
handed  down  to  us  by  our  fathers;  yet  our  study  of  the  past 
has  taught  us  nothing  of  much  value  if  we  have  not  learned 
from  it  the  importance  of  scrutinising  closely  whatever  bases 
its  claims  to  acceptance  on  tradition.  All  experience  shows 
that,  however  pure  the  channel  may  seem  to  be,  waters  that  are 
carried  down  from  level  to  level  become  contaminated  by  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


257 


channel  as  they  are  removed  farther  from  the  source;  and 
purity  can  be  maintained  only  by  a  constant  return  to  the 
limpid  fountain-head.  To  this  rule,  history  shows  us  that  the 
Church  forms  no  exception.  Relying  on  this  testimony,  we 
could  not  honestly  ask  the  ancestor-worshipping  Chinaman  to 
renounce  the  beliefs  handed  down  to  him  by  his  long  line  of 
progenitors;  the  Buddhist  would  rightly  reject  that  for  which 
you  could  furnish  no  higher  authority;  and  multitudes  of 
forms  of  religion  could  claim  in  their  favor  far  more  of  such 
testimony,  and  that  for  far  more  centuries,  than  you  can  for 
your  belief  from  any  organisation  which  you  would  be  willing 
to  recognise  as  a  Church  whose  testimony  is  worthy  of  implicit 
confidence.  Whatever  we  may  derive  from  this  quarter  is 
therefore  plainly  insufficient. 

Not  only  is  this  insufficient,  but  the  historical  argument 
already  considered  is,  also;  certainly  at  least  for  the  great  mass 
of  mankind.  I  suppose  that  not  very  many  even  of  you  have 
had,  or  ever  will  have,  the  time  and  the  opportunity  to  make 
for  yourselves  such  a  thorough  examination  of  the  original 
historical  witnesses  as  to  be  able  to  express  any  independent 
opinion  of  your  own  respecting  the  value  of  the  testimony  of 
these  witnesses  and  what  that  testimony  proves.  Hence  you 
would  be  obliged  to  take  your  beliefs  at  second-hand ;  you  could 
form  none  for  yourselves  based  on  a  knowledge  of  the  actual 
facts.  Therefore  you  would  never  be  able  to  rest  with  that 
full  and  absolute  confidence  in  your  belief  that  the  Bible  is  the 
word  of  God  which  is  necessary  to  warrant  you  in  calmly  com- 
mitting to  its  teachings  your  highest  interests  for  time  and  for 
eternity. 

We  see,  then,  the  desirableness  of  some  other  tests  which  are 
within  easy  reach  of  all  men,  so  that  each  for  himself  may  be 
able  to  form  a  conclusion  from  facts  which  he  may  directly 
observe,  or  which,  though  a  knowledge  of  them  may  depend 
upon  historical  testimony,  are  universally  admitted  to  be  true 
by  friend  and  foe. 

I  may  mention,  as  one  of  these,  that  which  results  from  the 
examination  of  the  contents  of  the  various  books  making  up  the 
Bible.  Here  we  have  sixty-six  books,  written  at  different  times 
during  fifteen  hundred  years,  in  different  languages,  by  men  of 


17— w 


258 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


various  ranks  and  degrees  of  education,  and  in  different  lands. 
These  are  all  filled  with  statements  respecting  the  same  subject 
—-what  man  is  to  believe  concerning  God,  and  what  duty  God 
requires  of  man.  Now,  if  in  one  of  our  courts  of  justice  we 
hear  a  dozen  witnesses,  unacquainted  with  each  other,  where 
there  has  been  no  possibility  of  collusion,  all  giving  testimony 
touching  various  aspects  of  the  case  under  trial,  and  the  testi- 
mony of  each  perfectly  agrees  with  the  testimony  of  each  of 
the  others,  we  conclude  with  certainty  that  the  witnesses  are 
honest  men,  and  that  their  testimony  is  not  to  be  doubted.  This 
is  exactly  parallel  with  the  case  we  have  in  hand.  Our  Biblical 
witnesses  all  testify  respecting  the  same  subjects,"  they  could 
not  possibly  have  been  in  collusion ;  and  yet,  though  they  give 
their  testimony  respecting  widely  different  details  and  from 
widely  different  points  of  view,  we  find,  however  closely  we 
scrutinise  the  whole,  that  every  part  of  it  agrees  perfectly  with 
every  other;  and  thus  we  come  directly  to  know  the  truth  of 
the  whole. 

One  of  the  main  points  in  the  testimony  of  each  witness  is 
that  the  words  are  not  his  own,  but  that  he  has  spoken  as  merely 
a  messenger,  as  he  has  been  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  And 
hence  that  the  real  author  of  the  books  is  one — even  God. 
Of  the  fact  that  you  have  ascertained  this  agreement  for  your- 
selves, even  although  you  may  not  formally  have  stated  it,  you 
give  proof  by  your  almost  unconscious  recognition  of  the  Bible 
as  one  single  book  instead  of  sixty-six,  thus  recognising  the 
oneness  of  its  author.  The  discrepancies  which  are  alleged  to 
exist  between  the  various  testimonies  are  as  nothing  when  com- 
pared with  those  which  occur  between  testimony  given  in  our 
courts  by  men  of  the  highest  veracity  touching  the  plainest 
matters.  And  even  these,  slight  as  they  are,  are  found  to  dis- 
appear in  proportion  as  we  approach  the  exact  original  text, 
and  as  we  understand  its  exact  meaning. 

I  may  now  mention  another  test.  Let  us  suppose  that  we 
hear  that  there  has  been  found  in  an  old  library,  all  covered 
with  dust,  a  book  of  which  we  know  not  the  history,  containing 
what  professes  to  be  a  description  of  lands  we  have  never  seen, 
and  a  series  of  statements  as  to  the  results  of  carefully 
described  experiments  there  set  forth.    Our  neighbors  and 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


259 


friends  tell  us  that  they  have  visited  the  lands  spoken  of,  and 
have  performed  the  experiments  described ;  and  they  have 
found  everything  to  agree  exactly  with  what  is  told  in  the  dust- 
covered  volume.  You  could  not  help  believing  that  the  book 
had  been  written  by  truthful  persons  who  were  acquainted  with 
the  subjects  about  which  they  had  written,  unless  you  rejected 
the  testimony  of  your  neighbors,  whom  you  trusted  in  every- 
thing else,  and  unless  you  refused  to  believe  in  the  honesty  and 
freedom  from  trickery  of  those  who  performed  these  experi- 
ments before  your  eyes.  So  far  as  your  belief  in  the  book  was 
concerned,  you  would  not  care  at  all  about  its  history ;  your 
belief  is  independent  of  everything,  except  what  you  have 
heard  from  your  neighbors  and  seen  for  yourselves. 

Now  apply  this  test.  Here  I  show  you  a  book  which  is  full 
of  descriptions  of  many  countries,  with  their  seas  and  lakes  and 
rivers,  their  mountains  and  their  plains,  their  cities  and  their 
villages.  Your  neighbors  who  have  visited  these  countries  tell 
you  that  they  have  found  everything  exactly  as  described.  But 
further :  this  book  tells  you  that  if  any  one  does  things  there  set 
forth,  certain  results  will  be  sure  to  follow.  For  example,  tha^ 
whoever  really  believes  in  Jesus  Christ,  of  whom  much  is  said, 
becomes  wholly  transformed  in  his  character.  If  he  has  been  a 
thief,  he  becomes  honest  :  if  he  has  been  a  turbulent  ruffian,  he 
becomes  peaceful  and  kind;  if  he  has  been  an  unclean 
debauchee,  he  becomes  chaste;  if  a  drunkard,  he  abandons  his 
cups — whatever  he  may  have  been,  he  now  becomes  upright, 
pure,  honorable,  and  faithful  in  all  the  relations  of  life.  Then 
further,  that  in  all  this  he  is  influenced  by  love  of  holiness  and 
hatred  of  sin :  that  his  desire  to  do  right  and  to  abstain  from  all 
that  is  wrong,  even  in  his  most  secret  thoughts,  is  constantly 
becoming  stronger.  And  also  that  he  will  corne  to  enjoy  a 
sense  of  God's  love ;  that  though  he  may  have  been  at  times 
terribly  agitated  and  tormented  when  he  thought  of  his  evil 
deeds  and  his  evil  life,  he  will  now  enjoy  peace  of  conscience, 
joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  hope  of  happiness  for  ever  in  God's 
presence  beyond  the  grave.  Xow.  here  is  a  great  variety  of 
results  which  this  book  tells  you  will  follow  from  a  belief  in  a 
being  of  whom  it  gives  a  full  history ;  and  many  of  them  are  of 
such  a  nature  that  you  can  see  for  yourselves  whether  or  not 


260 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


the  statement  is  true.  I  appeal  to  you,  then,  have  you  not 
observed  in  some  instances,  in  many  instances,  exactly  such 
results  as  I  have  described  following  a  professed  belief  and 
practical  acceptance  of  the  statements  made  respecting  Jesus 
Christ?  I  go  further,  and  ask  if  you  ever  saw  or  heard  of  a 
case  where  you  had  reason  to  think  this  profession  of  belief 
was  sincere,  where  the  results  described  did  not  follow  ?  True, 
some  of  them  are  such  that  you  cannot  see  them,  and  you  have 
to  take  the  word  of  another  as  to  their  existence ;  but  many  of 
the  transformations  you  can  see,  indeed,  cannot  help  seeing, 
and  are  such  as  cannot  possibly  be  counterfeits,  produced  by  an 
intention  to  deceive.  And  those  about  which  you  have  to  take 
the  word  of  others,  you  have  heard  testified  to  by  the  most 
truthful  men  and  the  holiest  women  you  have  ever  known,  and 
at  times  when,  if  ever,  the  truth  will  be  spoken — not  merely  in 
times  of  health  and  abounding  temporal  happiness,  but  when 
overwhelmed  with  suffering,  trembling  on  the  borders  of  the 
river  of  death,  when  the  testimony  is  uttered  by  voice  and 
tongue  soon  to  lie  silent  in  the  grave. 

Here,  then,  is  a  test  which  every  one  can  apply  for  himself. 
It  requires  no  historical  learning;  it  does  not  depend  on  fhe 
truthfulness  or  the  accuracy  and  trustworthiness  of  the  reason- 
ing of  others ;  in  large  part  it  depends  solely  upon  our  own 
direct  personal  observation  and  those  principles  of  belief  and 
of  reasoning  which  are  imbedded  in  our  nature,  and  of  which 
we  cannot  divest  ourselves.  Can  any  one  hesitate  to  say  that 
the  result  of  this  test  must  be  that  the  Bible  is  thereby  proved 
to  be  true,  to  be  indeed  the  word  of  God?  Can  any  one  refuse 
to  accept  these  conclusions  without  abandoning  and  contradict- 
ing the  principles  by  which  he  is  guided  and  upon  which  he 
depends  with  absolute  confidence  in  all  the  affairs  of  his  life? 

But  there  is  still  another  test  which  is  even  more  conclusive. 

A  dweller  in  a  deep,  dark  cave  might  be  persuaded  to  believe 
in  the  existence  somewhere  of  a  great  body  which  pours  a 
continual  flood  of  light  and  heat  upon  the  surface  of  the  earth, 
far  above  him,  by  the  testimony  of  those  who  descended  to  his 
home,  and  told  him  of  what  they  had  seen  and  felt.  These 
visitors  might  convey  to  him  some  notion  of  the  character  of 
the  sun  by  comparing  its  power  and  its  effects  with  those  of 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


261 


the  dimly  burning  lamp  by  which  the  darkness  of  his  cavern  is 
made  visible.  But  however  clear  the  descriptions,  and  however 
firm  the  confidence  of  the  cave-dweller  in  the  truthfulness  of 
his  visitors,  his  belief  could  not  be  so  strong  that  it  could  not 
be  shaken ;  there  might  arise  in  his  mind  the  thought  that  per- 
haps after  all  his  visitors  had  themselves  been  deceived,  and 
had  been  trying  to  deceive  him,  or  that  he  had  misunderstood 
them,  and  that  all  the  while  they  had  only  been  telling  him  what 
they  wished  might  be.  And  if  some  one  should  tell  him  that 
he  had  been  misled,  and  that  the  sun  had  no  real  existence, 
reminding  him  that  men  did  not  always  speak  the  truth,  and 
that  he  could  not  know  positively  whether  what  he  had  heard 
was  true  or  not,  how  could  he  fail  to  be  filled  with  doubt?  It 
would  be  hard  indeed  for  him  to  say  that,  notwithstanding  all, 
he  was  unchangeably  convinced  of  the  truth  of  all  that  he  had 
first  heard. 

But  now  let  him  ascend  to  the  surface  for  himself ;  after 
climbing  ladder  above  ladder  he  at  length  leaps  forth  from  his 
dark  abode,  and  the  clear  shining  sun  in  all  his  glory  at  once 
bathes  him  in  a  sea  of  purest  light  and  of  gladdening  warmth. 
Now  how  vain  the  attempt  to  make  him  doubt ;  he  has  seen 
and  felt  the  happiness-bringing  rays  of  the  mighty  ruler  of  the 
day;  and  he  knows  for  himself  that  it  is,  and  what  it  is,  and 
no  doubt  can  ever  again  enter  his  mind,  however  deeply  he  may 
descend  towards  his  former  dismal  abode. 

So  it  is  with  one  whose  eyes  have  been  opened  by  the  pow^r 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  who  has  by  him  been  turned  from  dark- 
ness to  light ;  with  one  to  whom  God  has  unveiled  the  truth  by 
his  Spirit;  to  whom  spiritual  discernment  has  been  given. 
Such  a  one  receives  the  word  of  God  when  he  hears  or  reads 
the  messages  of  his  prophets  and  apostles,  not  as  the  word  of 
these  men,  but  as  it  is  in  truth,  the  word  of  God.  In  vain 
would  all  efforts  be  to  make  him  doubt:  he  knows  just  as  he 
knows  that  the  sun  shines. 

He  might  be  told  that  his  belief  is  a  mere  fancy  of  a  dis- 
ordered mind ;  that  it  is  merely  the  result  of  his  training  from 
childhood ;  that  he  has  always  heard  these  things,  and  therefore 
imagines  he  knows  them.  And  he  might  not  be  able  to 
answer  these  and  like  assertions,  any  more  than  many  of  us 


262 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


could  satisfactorily  answer  the  arguments  of  the  so-called 
philosophers  to  prove  that  there  is  no  world  external  to  our- 
selves ;  or,  that  if  there  is,  we  can  never  be  sure  of  it.  But  his 
belief  would  no  more  be  shaken  in  the  Bible  as  the  word  of 
God,  than  would  ours  in  the  existence  of  each  other,  of  the 
earth  on  which  we  live,  or  of  the  starry  heavens  above  us. 
His  belief  resting  on  this  firm  foundation,  he  can  exclaim 
touching  the  Saviour  it  describes,  "I  know  that  my  Redeemer 
liveth;  that  in  my  flesh  I  shall  see  God;  whom  I  shall 
see  for  myself  and  mine  eyes  shall  behold,  and  not  another." 
"I  know  whom  I  have  believed,  and  am  persuaded  that  he  is 
able  to  keep  that  which  I  have  committed  unto  him  against  that 
day."  May  I  not  appeal  to  many  of  you  as  knowing  from 
your  own  blessed  experience  the  truth  of  what  I  have  just  been 
saying?  You  have  tasted  that  the  Lord  is  gracious  in  giving 
you  his  Holy  Spirit,  and  this  has  led  you  to  recognise  and  desire 
the  pure  milk  of  the  word. 

We  have  now  reviewed  our  doctrine  so  far  as  it  teaches  that 
the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God  and  that  our  full  persuasion  and 
assurance  of  its  infallible  truth  and  divine  authority  is  from  the 
inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  bearing  witness  by  and  with 
the  word,  in  our  hearts.  We  have  next  to  see  what  our  doc- 
trine is  as  to  the  contents  of  this  word  and  God's  design  in 
giving  it  to  us. 

Even  a  cursory  examination  is  sufficient  to  show  us  that, 
whatever  else  it  may  contain  and  for  whatever  other  purpose  it 
may  be  designed,  it  principally  teaches  what  we  are  to  believe 
concerning  God,  and  what  duty  God  requires  of  us;  that  it 
speaks  concerning  all  things  necessary  for  God's  glory,  man's 
salvation,  faith,  and  life.  It  tells  us  of  God,  that  he  is  infinite, 
eternal,  and  unchangeable,  in  his  being,  wisdom,  power,  holi- 
ness, justice,  goodness,  and  truth;  that  he  is  our  Creator  and 
the  Creator  of  all  things ;  that  in  him  we  live  and  move  and 
have  our  being ;  that  he  created  man  in  his  own  image  in  knowl- 
edge, righteousness,  and  holiness;  that  man  fell  into  an  estate 
of  sin  and  misery ;  that  moved  by  his  infinite  love,  he  sent  his 
Son  into  the  world  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  might  have 
eternal  life;  that  his  Son,  when  he  came  to  be  our  Saviour, 
though  God  over  all,  blessed  for  ever,  yet  became  man,  taking 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


263 


on  himself  our  nature  by  being  born  of  a  woman,  that  he  might 
obey  the  law  and  suffer  its  penalty  for  us.  It  gives  man  as  his 
rule  of  life  this,  that  he  is  to  love  the  Lord  his  God  with  all  his 
heart,  with  all  his  soul,  with  all  his  strength,  and  with  all  his 
mind,  and  his  neighbor  as  himself ;  that  he  is  to  do  unto  others 
as  he  would  that  others  should  do  to  him ;  and  it  gives  in  detail 
commandments,  precepts,  and  principles,  showing  how  this  rule 
is  to  be  observed.  These  things  and  much  more  of  like  nature 
it  tells  us — showing  us  how  we  may  glorify  God  and  enjoy  him 
for  ever. 

But  while  it  principally  teaches  these  things,  does  it  not  like- 
wise incidentally  teach  us  much  else  of  matters  that  in  various 
ways  would  minister  to  our  well-being?  God  is  infinite  in 
goodness  and  love.  He  is  the  Father  of  all  men,  and  in  a  very 
special  sense  of  those  who  are  united  to  his  Son  Jesus  Christ, 
and  thus  have  become  one  with  that  well-beloved  Son.  He  is 
infinite  in  knowledge,  too.  Would  we  not,  then,  expect  him 
to  teach  his  children  all  those  arts  by  which  their  comfort  and 
happiness  on  earth  would  be  increased ;  and  all  those  branches 
of  knowledge  which  give  such  pure  and  elevated  delight  to  the 
truth-loving  soul?  That  is  the  way  in  which  we  act  towards 
our  children;  we  endeavor  to  train  them  not  only  in  spiritual 
knowledge,  but  we  also  give  them  all  the  knowledge  we  have 
about  everything  which  we  suppose  can  benefit  them  in  any  way 
whatever,  and  do  all  in  our  power  likewise  to  promote  their 
material  welfare.  If  we,  then,  being  evil,  give  as  gifts  to  our 
children  all  the  good  things  we  have,  shall  not  God  much  more 
give  all  the  good  things  he  has  as  gifts  to  his  children?  We  thus 
see  that  it  cannot  be  wholly  unreasonable  to  expect  to  find  that 
God's  word  is  a  treasure-house  filled  not  merely  with  priceless 
jewels,  but  containing  likewise  vessels  of  wood,  and  earth,  and 
stone,  fitted  for  the  humbler  uses  of  man.  Under  the  influence 
of  this  feeling  and  expectation,  the  lovers  of  the  Bible  have 
often,  very  often  in  all  ages,  entered  upon  the  study  of  it. 
Not  content  to  learn  what  it  does  teach,  in  the  only  way  in 
which  this  can  properly  be  done,  namely,  by  studying  it  with 
teachable  minds,  open  to  receive  the  impressions  that  God 
would  make  upon  them,  they  have  come  with  minds  made  up  as 
to  what  it  ought  to  teach,  and,  as  usually  happens  in  such  cases, 


264 


DR.  JAMSS  WOODROW. 


they  have  found  what  they  wished  to  find.  And  so  the  Bible 
has  been  thought  to  be  an  encyclopaedia  of  universal  knowledge, 
a  comprehensive  text-book  of  history,  philosophy,  and  the 
whole  circle  of  the  sciences.  But  the  intelligent  and  thoughtful 
could  not  long  continue  their  reading  and  study  of  the  sacred 
word  without  becoming  convinced  that  they  must  in  some 
respects  at  least  modify  this  opinion.  They  found  that,  though 
we  are  in  the  image  of  God,  yet  in  some  things,  and  among 
them  this  expectation  that  he  would  in  his  word  teach  us 
everything,  God's  thoughts  are  not  our  thoughts,  nor  are  his 
ways  our  ways.  As  to  history,  for  example,  it  was  easy 
long  ago  to  see  that  the  Bible  is  not  a  universal  history  of  all 
the  nations  among  men.  It  does  give  more  or  less  fully  an 
account  of  the  line  connecting  the  first  Adam  and  the  second 
Adam;  it  gives  an  outline  of  the  history  of  the  tribes  and 
nations  through  which  this  line  runs,  and  of  the  peoples  with 
which  these  are  connected  so  long  as  the  connexion  exists; 
but  beyond  this  the  Bible  is  not  history.  It  introduces  any 
facts  that  would  constitute  the  materials  of  history,  not  for 
their  own  sake  or  for  the  sake  of  pointing  out  the  relations 
existing  between  them,  but  only  as  showing  the  development 
of  that  system  of  spiritual,  moral,  and  religious  truth,  the 
centre  of  which,  that  to  which  all  else  points,  is,  that  the  seed 
of  the  woman  bruises  the  serpent's  head. 

But  the  hypothesis  of  the  encyclopaedic  character  of  the  Bible 
was  too  deeply  rooted  in  the  minds  of  men  to  be  abandoned  at 
once  when  it  was  seen  to  be  false  in  any  one  particular. 

Admitting  that  it  does  not  teach  universal  history,  it  was  still 
held  that  it  teaches  the  general  outlines  of  some  departments 
of  knowledge,  geography,  for  example.  It  was  maintained 
that  it  is  either  expressly  set  down  in  Scripture  or  by  good  and 
necessary  consequence  may  be  deduced  from  Scripture,  that  the 
earth  is  a  four-cornered  plain,  that  it  is  immovable,  that  it  has 
no  human  inhabitants  beyond  the  tropical  regions,  and  the  like. 
Then  as  to  astronomy,  it  was  maintained  that  in  like  manne' 
the  Scriptures  teach  that  the  sun  is  the  greatest  of  the  heavenly 
bodies,  that  the  moon  is  next  in  size  and  importance,  and  that 
all  the  stars  together  are  far  smaller  and  relatively  insignifi- 
cant; that  all  these  were  brought  into  existence  some  days  after 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


265 


the  earth,  and  three  or  four  days  before  man  was  created,  and 
all  solely  for  his  benefit.  By  slow  degrees  it  has  now  come  to 
be  believed  that  none  of  these  things  are  taught  in  the  Bible 
either  expressly  or  otherwise;  and  therefore  that  in  these 
respects  also  the  Bible  is  not  encyclopaedic.  I  shall  not  pursue 
this  point  farther  for  the  present,  as  I  must  return  to  it  from 
another  direction ;  but  I  may  call  your  attention  in  passing  to 
the  fact  that  the  abandonment  of  these  views  which  had  been 
the  prevailing  and  recognised  ones  for  centuries  did  not  in  the 
least  in  a  single  instance  affect  the  moral,  spiritual,  and  reli- 
gious truths  involved.  The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God 
and  the  firmament  showeth  his  handiwork  to  you  just  as  they 
did  hundreds  of  years  ago  to  those  at  whose  views  in  some 
particulars  you  are  now  disposed  to  smile,  but  for  which  they 
were  ready  to  contend  earnestly  as  part  of  the  faith  once  deliv- 
ered to  the  saints,  and  for  doubting  or  rejecting  which  they  were 
ready  to  excommunicate  their  fellows,  and,  if  they  could,  in 
their  zeal  for  God  and  his  truth,  to  punish  them  with  imprison- 
ment and  death. 

Our  standards  set  forth  the  doctrine  with  consummate  wis- 
dom that  all  needed  moral,  spiritual,  and  religious  truth  is  here 
given  us ;  but  there  they  stop,  observing  a  silence  like  that  of 
the  Scriptures  themselves.  And  against  going  farther  they 
utter  this  solemn  warning  to  which  we  shall  do  well  to  take 
heed :  "Unto  this  truth  nothing  at  any  time  is  to  be  added, 
whether  by  new  revelations  of  the  Spirit,  or  traditions  of  men." 

The  sin  against  which  we  are  here  warned  is  of  the  gravest 
character.  It  is  nothing  less  than  seizing  the  prerogatives  of 
Jehovah,  and  daring  to  utter  by  our  own  power  commands  that 
claim  to  be  of  equal  authority  with  his.  When  we  rightly 
appreciate  the  enormity  of  this  sin,  we  cannot  wonder  at  the 
terrible  words  in  which  it  is  denounced  by  God.  Speaking  of 
one  of  his  books,  he  says  by  the  mouth  of  his  servant  what  is 
equally  applicable  to  all  of  them:  "I  testify  unto  every  man 
that  heareth  the  words  of  the  prophecy  of  this  book.  If  any  man 
shall  add  unto  these  things,  God  shall  add  unto  him  the  plagues 
that  are  written  in  this  book.  And  if  any  man  shall  take  away 
from  the  words  of  the  book  of  this  prophecy,  God  shall  take 
away  his  part  out  of  the  book  of  life,  and  out  of  the  holy 


266 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


city,  and  from  the  things  which  are  written  in  this  book." 
(Rev,  22:18,  19).  Elsewhere  he  reiterates  the  command:  "Ye 
shall  not  add  unto  the  word  which  I  command  you,  neither 
shall  ye  diminish  aught  from  it."  "What  thing  soever  I  com- 
mand you,  observe  to  do  it:  thou  shalt  not  add  thereto,  nor 
diminish  from  it."  He  says  further,  "Every  word  of  God  is 
pure ;  *  *  *  add  thou  not  unto  his  words,  lest  he  reprove  thee, 
and  thou  be  found  a  liar."  And  the  Son  of  God,  the  Divine 
Word,  testifies  against  opinions  handed  down  by  tradition, 
however  generally  they  may  have  been  received  by  the  Church. 
Defending  himself  against  the  charge  that  he  did  not  pay  due 
regard  to  the  traditions  of  the  elders  which  were  received  by 
all  the  teachers  in  the  Church  in  his  day  and  by  all  its  mem- 
bers, the  Jews,  he  said :  "Well  hath  Esaias  prophesied  of  you 
hypocrites,  as  it  is  written,  This  people  honoreth  me  with  their 
lips,  but  their  heart  is  far  from  me.  Howbeit  in  vain  do  they 
worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men. 
For  laying  aside  the  commandment  of  God,  ye  hold  the  tradi- 
tion of  men."  "Full  well  ye  reject  the  commandment  of  God, 
that  ye  may  keep  your  own  tradition."  "Making  the  word  of 
God  of  none  effect  through  your  tradition,  which  ye  have 
delivered ;  and  many  such  like  things  do  ye." 

We  have  now  seen  that  it  is  our  doctrine  that  the  whole  coun- 
sel of  God,  concerning  all  things  necessary  for  his  own  glory, 
man's  salvation,  faith,  and  life,  is  either  expressly  set  down  in 
Scripture,  or  by  good  and  necessary  consequence  may  be 
deduced  from  Scripture.  How  unspeakably  important  is  it, 
then,  in  the  next  place,  that  we  know  how  to  learn  accurately 
the  meaning  of  writings  whose  contents  are  thus  seen  to  be  of 
infinite  importance  to  us!  How  greatly  it  concerns  us  to 
know  whether  they  are  plain,  or  hard  to  be  understood; 
whether  the  directions  set  down  as  to  how  we  may  glorify  God, 
and  secure  our  own  salvation,  are  so  obscure  that  we  must 
remain  all  our  lives  in  doubt  respecting  them,  or  so  clear  that 
we  cannot  fail  to  comprehend  them ! 

Returning  again,  then,  to  our  examination  of  the  Scriptures, 
as  we. read,  we  find  much  that  we  can  easily  understand  at  once, 
and  much  that  we  perhaps  cannot  understand  at  all,  even  after 
the  most  diligent  study.    When  we  now  once  more  look  at  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


267 


parts  which  we  have  found  plain,  we  are  filled  with  joy  by 
seeing  that  they  are  exactly  those  things  which  are  necessary 
to  be  known,  believed,  and  observed,  for  salvation.  And  to 
make  this  discovery  we  do  not  need  great  stores  of  learning; 
we  do  not  need  cultivated  minds,  carefully  trained,  and  of  deep 
penetration ;  we  do  not  need  to  know  the  languages  in  which 
the  words  were  first  written ;  we  do  not  need  even  to  be  able  to 
read  our  own  language — it  is  enough  for  us  to  hear  an  imper- 
fect translation  repeated  by  the  lips  of  another.  So  hearing,  we 
cannot  fail  to  understand  the  answers,  scattered  all  along  like 
points  of  living  light — the  answers  given  to  the  question,  What 
shall  I  do  to  be  saved  ?  The  way  of  holiness  is  marked  out  so 
clearly  that  "the  wayfaring  men,  though  fools,  shall  not  err 
therein."  "In  this  way  shall  the  redeemed  walk;  and  the 
ransomed  of  the  Lord  shall  return,  and  come  to  Zion  with 
songs  of  everlasting  joy  upon  their  heads ;  they  shall  obtain  joy 
and  gladness,  and  sorrow  and  sighing  shall  flee  away." 

But  how  are  we  to  gain  an  understanding  of  the  parts  that 
are  not  so  clear? 

Before  answering  this  question,  let  us  consider  how  much 
incidental  knowledge,  as  it  is  called,  we  may  reasonably  expect 
to  obtain.  The  Bible  is  a  communication  of  God's  will  to  men, 
to  be  understood  by  them,  and  therefore  it  is  in  important 
respects  to  be  interpreted  according  to  the  ordinary  rules  of 
interpretation  which  prevail  among  men.  One  of  the  surest 
guides  we  can  have  is  our  knowledge  of  the  intention  or  design 
of  any  writer.  And  we  may  often  discover  this  from  what  is 
written,  even  while  still  much  remains  obscure.  I  think  we 
shall  all  agree  that  we  know  with  certainty  the  design,  at  least 
the  main  design,  of  God  in  giving  us  his  word. 

Now,  let  us  take  some  statement  outside  the  Bible,  and  see 
how  we  should  understand  it.  Let  us  suppose  somewhere  we 
should  find  this  sentence,  "Quinine,  derived  from  Peruvian 
bark,  in  certain  cases  prevents  and  removes  fever,"  how  would 
we  understand  it?  The  main  design  clearly  is  to  tell  us  of  the 
curative  property  of  the  substance  named ;  and  this  is  accom- 
plished so  fully  that  we  cannot  misunderstand.  But  is  this  all 
that  we  are  taught  ?  No,  not  quite  perhaps ;  for  it  plainly 
enough  appears  that  quinine  is  derived  from  another  substance. 


268 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


Now,  there  is  necessarily  involved  in  what  is  said  a  chemical 
process  by  which  the  quinine  is  derived  from  the  bark,  a 
physiological  process  according  to  which  the  quinine  acts  on 
the  human  frame,  a  relation  of  the  parts  of  that  frame  made 
known  in  anatomy,  a  geographical  reference  in  the  name  of  the 
bark — Peruvian.  Are  we  then  here  incidentally  taught  any- 
thing of  chemistry,  physiology,  anatomy,  or  geography?  We 
would  reply,  Certainly  not,  except  perhaps  so  far  as  relates  to 
the  fact  that  the  bark  grew  in  Peru.  But  is  even  this  presented 
to  us  as  a  fact?  If  at  the  time  the  statement  is  made,  all  the 
trees  in  South  America  producing  such  bark  had  been 
destroyed,  and  quinine  was  procured  exclusively  from  trees 
growing  in  Asia,  would  the  truth  of  the  statement  be  affected  ? 
If  indeed  our  informant  intended  to  tell  us  that  the  bark  came 
from  Peru,  certainly  under  the  last  supposition,  it  would  not  be 
true ;  but  since  his  sole  design  is  plainly  to  tell  us  of  the  cura- 
tive properties,  and  since  his  words  convey  to  us  fully  and 
accurately  all  he  wishes  to  convey,  it  matters  not  where  the 
bark  may  have  grown ;  all  that  he  is  responsible  for  is  that  the 
terms  he  uses  give  us  exactly  his  intended  meaning.  If  we 
carefully  consider  this  case,  we  shall  see  how  unreasonable  it 
is  to  look  for  the  communication  of  the  incidental  knowledge 
alluded  to,  and  to  imagine  that  there  could  be  the  remotest 
intention  to  teach  anything  concerning  the  branches  of  science 
named. 

We  say,  therefore,  that  our  interpretations  must  always  be 
confined  within  the  limits  of  the  fairly  ascertained  intention  of 
the  author.  And  that  where  it  is  supposed  that  God  is  teaching 
us  in  his  word  anything  except  moral,  religious,  and  spiritual 
truth,  it  must  be  made  extremely  plainly  to  appear  from  the 
word  itself  that  it  is  his  intention  so  to  do. 

I  now  answer  the  question  asked  a  little  while  ago,  that  the 
only  "infallible  rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture,  is  the  Scrip- 
ture itself ;  and  therefore,  when  there  is  a  question  about  the 
true  and  full  sense  of  any  scripture  (which  is  not  manifold,  but 
one),  it  may  be  searched  and  known  by  other  places  that  speak 
more  clearly."  When  any  meaning  cannot  be  thus  ascertained, 
it  cannot  be  ascertained  at  all.  We  may  add  that  here,  as 
elsewhere,  there  are  some  circumstances — common  to  human 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


269 


actions — which  are  to  be  ordered  by  the  light  of  nature  and 
Christian  prudence,  according  to  the  general  rules  of  the  word, 
which  are  always  to  be  observed. 

When  we  speak  of  the  Scriptures,  we  mean  the  ascertained 
original  text,  in  the  Hebrew  or  the  Greek  language.  .Arid  the 
meaning  we  are  to  seek  in  examining  any  word,  phrase,  or 
sentence,  is  the  meaning  thereby  conveyed  to  the  first  hearers. 
In  the  course  of  time,  words  change  their  meaning;  in  our 
English  translation  of  the  Bible,  made  two  hundred  and  seventy 
or  two  hundred  and  eighty  years  ago.  "let"  means  '''hinder,'' 
"prevent"  means  "anticipate"''  or  "go  before."  Suppose  it 
should  please  God  to  make  a  revelation  to  us  to-day  in  which 
he  used  these  words — how  must  we  understand  them?  Cer- 
tainly not  as  they  were  used  two  hundred  and  seventy  or  two 
hundred  and  eighty  years  ago.  but  as  they  are  used  now — "let" 
as  meaning  "allow,"  and  "prevent"  as  meaning  "hinder."  It 
would  be  shocking  to  attribute  to  the  God  of  truth,  when 
making  known  his  will  to  his  creatures,  the  use  of  language  in 
such  a  way  as  would  inevitably  mislead  them. 

But  now  we  may  ask,  recognising  the  fact  that  we  must 
interpret  language  according  to  its  meaning  at  the  time  when 
it  was  used,  must  we  assume  that  God  meant  to  teach  all  that 
the  words  and  expressions,  in  themselves  considered,  might  and 
would  naturally  convey  to  the  first  hearers?  According  as  we 
shall  answer  this  question,  as  I  conceive,  will  be  our  success  or 
failure  in  removing  that  which  I  regard  as  one  of  the  greatest 
obstacles,  if  not  by  far  the  very  greatest,  in  the  way  of  honest, 
upright,  truth-loving  men  when  they  are  inquiring  into  the 
truth  of  our  life-giving  Scriptures,  and  over  which  multitudes 
stumble  and  fall  into  eternal  perdition. 

I  may  perhaps  best  set  before  you  this  point,  of  such 
tremendous  importance,  by  familiar  illustrations.  When  God 
speaks  of  himself  in  the  Bible,  he  speaks  in  plain,  simple  lan- 
guage, which  no  one  can  misunderstand,  of  his  having  bodily 
parts  like  a  man  :  of  his  face,  his  eyes,  his  hand,  his  arm,  his 
feet;  so  in  equally  plain  language  he  represents  himself  as 
changing  his  mind,  as  being  ignorant,  so  that  he  must  go  down 
to  earth  to  find  out  what  are  the  facts,  and  the  like.  Does  anv 
one  now  regard  him  as  teaching  these  things  when  he  so  speaks? 


270 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Assuredly  not.  How,  then?  for  the  language  is  unmistakable. 
I  suppose  you  and  every  one  else  would  say,  He  did  not  intend 
to  teach  these  things ;  all  that  he  did  intend  to  teach  was  clearly 
conveyed  by  his  language;  and  while  indeed  many  who  heard 
him,  perhaps  all,  sometimes,  would  regard  him  as  teaching 
those  other  things,  he  is  not  responsible  for  that ;  he  is  solely 
responsible  for  this:  that  his  words  shall  exactly  convey  what 
he  intended  them  to  convey.  Hence,  though  he  spoke  of  him- 
self as  having  a  body,  and  as  being  ignorant,  and  so  on,  he 
never  taught  these  things,  but  taught  solely  in  these  forms  the 
spiritual,  moral,  and  religious  truth  he  designed  to  convey. 

WE  ASCERTAIN  THE  UMIT  OF  THE  MEANING  OF  HIS  COMMUNI- 
CATION BY  ASCERTAINING  THE  LIMIT  OF  THE  INTENTION. 

Again,  God  says  through  his  servant  Matthew,  that  Jesus 
Christ  healed  lunatics.  In  itself  considered,  this  statement 
sanctions  the  belief — teaches  incidentally — that  insanity  is  the 
result  of  the  baleful  influence  of  the  moon.  For  centuries  this 
was  regarded  as  part  of  the  divine  teaching.  It  was  believed 
even  by  most  enlightened  minds  last  century — by  the  learned 
Sir  William  Blackstone,  for  example.  Perhaps  it  is  believed 
by  many  to-day;  and  multitudes  of  those  who  so  believe,  find 
in  Matthew's  inspired  words  proof  of  the  truth  of  their  belief. 

Now,  do  you  believe,  when  you  speak  of  lunacy,  that  it  is  a 
mental  disease  caused  by  the  moon?  Or  do  you  believe  that 
God  so  teaches  in  his  word?  If  not,  why  not?  That  idea  was 
certainly  conveyed  to  those  who  first  read  God's  word  as  writ- 
ten by  Matthew ;  they  so  understood  it ;  did  God  teach  it?  No, 
you  say.  And  I  suppose  you  would  again  agree  with  me,  in 
defending  your  denial  as  before,  by  saying,  that  God  intended 
to  teach  merely  the  healing  and  not  the  origin  of  the  disease, 
and  that  the  meaning  rightly  attributable  to  his  words  must  be 
limited  by  that  intention. 

Again,  through  his  servants,  God  spoke  of  the  corners  of  the 
earth ;  he  described  the  earth  as  immovable,  and  so  on.  Now  I 
suppose  you  would  say  the  earth  is  spheroidal  and  therefore  has 
no  corners ;  that  it  does  move.  But  are  you  not  thereby  con- 
tradicting the  Bible?  Undoubtedly  you  are  contradicting  its 
words,  and  its  words  as  understood  at  the  time  they  were 
uttered  or  penned.    But  you  rightly  defend  yourselves  by  again 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


271 


asserting  that  God  does  not  intend  to  teach  you  the  relations  of 
things  to  each  other,  that  is,  natural  science ;  but  solely  moral, 
religious,  and  spiritual  truth;  and  this  he  does  with  unerring 
accuracy,  in  the  words  in  which  for  so  many  centuries  his 
people  insisted  he  also  taught  incidentally  the  main  outlines 
of  geographical  science. 

But  it  is  needless  to  multiply  illustrations.  It  is  to  be 
observed  in  all  these  cases  that  the  change  in  interpretation  has 
not  been  made,  or  at  least  ought  not  to  be  made,  in  obedience 
to  discoveries,  or  supposed  discoveries,  of  truth  by  investiga- 
tions outside  the  Bible.  It  is  not  because  we  think  we  have 
discovered  that  the  earth  is  a  spheroid  and  rotates  on  an  axis 
that  we  have  a  right  to  say  that  the  Bible  does  not  teach  that 
it  is  a  four-cornered  plain  and  immovable.  No;  but  it  is 
because  we  find  on  a  closer  reexamination  of  the  Bible,  and  by 
comparing  one  scripture  with  another,  and  thus  learning  the 
design  of  the  Divine  Author  and  what  he  would  have  us  under- 
stand— it  is  thus  by  this  only  infallible  rule  that  we  find  that 
the  Bible  teaches  nothing  respecting  the  shape  or  the  motions  of 
the  earth ;  and  then  we  do  not  as  Bible  believers  concern  our- 
selves as  to  what  opinions  may  prevail  on  the  subject.  So  in 
all  other  cases. 

It  is  true  that  the  supposed  discoveries  outside  may  put  us  on 
inquiry,  and  rightly  so.  If  any  one  comes  to  us  saying  that  he 
is  acquainted  with  facts  inconsistent  with  the  teachings  of  the 
Bible,  it  is  not  improper  for  us  to  compare  his  alleged  facts 
with  the  Bible  teachings.  If,  after  a  careful  scrutiny,  by  a  new 
application  of  the  only  infallible  rule,  of  what  we  have  believed 
to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  we  are  still  persuaded  that  our 
former  belief  of  what  the  Bible  teaches  is  correct,  then  we  must 
deny  the  alleged  facts,  whatever  show  of  reason  may  be  pre- 
sented in  their  favor.  But  if,  as  has  often  happened  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Church,  this  application  of  the  infallible  rule  proves 
that  we  have  been  attributing  to  the  Scriptures  what  is  not 
there,  then  as  honest  men  we  must  instantly  abandon  our  errors. 
But  we  may  never  for  an  instant  allow  our  interpretations  to  be 
controlled  by  anything  outside,  whether  in  the  form  of  plausible 
speculations,  probable  truth,  or  alleged  facts.  When  we  have  a 
"Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  and  rightly  understand  its  significance, 


272 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


whatever  is  inconsistent  therewith  is  thereby  proved  to  be  false. 

What  I  have  now  said  is  not  at  all  contradictory  of  the  posi- 
tion that  we  may  often  be  greatly  aided  by  outside  knowledge  in 
interpreting  the  Scriptures.  As  we  have  seen,  we  may  be 
prompted  to  new  inquiry ;  and  in  other  ways  we  may  often  be 
directly  aided.  But  what  I  am  insisting  on  is  that  we  may 
never  subordinate  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures  to  outside 
knowledge  of  any  kind.  To  do  so  is  to  deny  the  supreme 
authority  of  God's  word.  We  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  it  is — 
though  often  unconsciously — infidelity,  unbelief  in  God's  word. 
For  example,  it  has  been  said  that  water  could  not  be  made 
wine,  because  all  the  elements  of  wine  are  not  to  be  found  in 
water ;  therefore  we  must  give  some  new  interpretation  to  the 
narrative  of  what  our  Saviour  did  at  Cana.  To  me  this  seems 
rationalism  or  infidelity.  So  there  are  those  who  deny  the 
power  of  God,  and  who  are  similarly  guilty  of  infidelity,  by 
asserting  that  the  materials  used  in  the  formation  of  Adam's 
body  could  not  have  been  clay,  sand,  or  the  like ;  for  these  sub- 
stances do  not  contain  the  elements  of  human  flesh  and  blood 
and  bones ;  that  is,  that  God  could  not  have  transformed  the 
elements  as  to  him  it  seemed  good.  The  only  true,  right  way 
is  to  believe  exactly  what  God's  word  says,  as  interpreted  by 
that  word  itself. 

There  is  nothing  new  in  the  points  on  which  I  have  been 
insisting — that  as  the  Bible  is  a  revelation  of  God's  will  to  man, 
the  meaning  of  its  words  and  phrases  is  the  meaning  these  had 
at  the  time  the  revelation  was  made ;  that,  however,  the  whole 
of  the  meaning  thus  ascertained  is  not  necessarily  conveyed  by 
God  to  his  people,  but  only  such  part  of  it  as  is  embraced  in  his 
intention ;  that  both  the  whole  meaning  and  God's  intention  are 
to  be  discovered  solely  from  the  Scriptures  themselves,  and  by 
comparing  Scripture  with  Scripture.  This,  substantially,  is  not 
merely  the  Presbyterian  doctrine  of  the  Bible,  but  it  is  a  doc- 
trine that  has  been  held  by  all  Christian  believers  in  all  ages. 
But  when  we  look  at  the  history  of  the  application  of  these 
rules,  or  rather  the  failures  to  apply  them,  we  see  that  which 
has  been  and  is,  with  the  exception  of  the  natural  evil  heart  of 
unbelief,  the  most  terribly  fruitful  of  all  the  causes  that  have 
ever  existed  of  infidelity,  of  the  rejection  of  the  Scriptures, 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


273 


and  of  the  Saviour  and  salvation  they  offer,  and  of  the  conse- 
quent everlasting  loss  of  numberless  souls  of  our  fellow-men. 
If  these  rules  had  been  rightly  applied,  recognised  and  ordained 
teachers  of  the  Church  would  never  have  taught  that  the  Bible 
teaches  that  the  earth  is  a  four-cornered  immovable  plain ;  that 
the  sun  and  the  stars  revolve  round  the  earth ;  that  for  a  time 
this  little  earth  of  ours  existed  all  alone,  without  sun,  moon,  or 
stars  anywhere  in  all  the  universe — all  else  being  brought  into 
existence  some  days  later ;  that  the  earth  and  the  whole  uni- 
verse were  created  less  than  six  thousand  years  ago;  that  it  is 
impious  to  believe  in  the  law  of  universal  gravitation ;  that  the 
firmament  of  heaven  is  a  solid  vault ;  that  the  bat  is  a  bird ;  that 
the  hare  chews  the  cud ;  that  the  waters  of  the  ocean  are  kept 
back  from  overflowing  the  whole  earth  by  the  constant  mir- 
aculous exercise  of  God's  power.  So  in  other  departments  of 
thought — doctrines  have  been  attributed  to  the  Bible  which  an 
application  of  the  rules  we  have  been  considering  never  would 
have  permitted  to  be  regarded  as  part  of  God's  teachings. 

Just  so  far  as  the  Church  and  church  teachers  have  failed 
rightly  to  apply  these  rules,  have  the  number  of  infidels 
increased ;  and  so  it  must  continue  to  be  in  the  future.  Church 
teachers  have  often  failed  to  make  such  application,  and  hence 
have  been  maintaining  and  promulgating  during  all  its  past 
history  as  Bible  doctrines  the  untruths  we  have  enumerated. 
They  have  taught  that  a  refusal  to  accept  these  falsehoods  is  a 
refusal  to  accept  the  Bible;  they  have  denounced  as  infidels 
and  rejecters  of  Christianity  all  who  refuse  to  accept  their  mis- 
erable additions  to  the  meaning  of  God's  word  and  perversions 
of  it.  And  they  have  thus  filled  the  world  with  infidels;  for 
they  have  made  it  impossible  for  intelligent  men  not  to  be 
infidels,  unless  they  believe  that  such  church  teachers  are 
misinterpreting  the  Bible  they  are  appointed  to  expound.  They 
have  made  it  to  be  true  that  "ignorance  is  the  mother  of  devo- 
tion;" they  have  utterly  prevented  in  myriads  of  cases  the 
acceptance  of  the  glorious  saving  spiritual,  religious,  and  moral 
truth  presented  in  the  gospel,  by  demanding  the  acceptance,  at 
the  same  time,  of  all  the  masses  of  untruths  by  which  they 
loaded  it  down.  Shall  we  not  pray  for  the  soon  coming  of  the 
day  when,  by  a  complete  appreciation  of  the  principles  now 


18— w 


274 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


stated,  church  teachers  will  proclaim  as  Scripture  truth  solely 
that  which  God  would  teach  in  his  word,  so  that  all  men  shall 
be  irresistibly  attracted  by  its  undimmed  beauty  and  glory  ? 

I  ask  you  to  observe  again,  in  connexion  with  the  last  point, 
that  the  recognition  of  the  limited  nature  and  purpose  of  God's 
teachings  has  in  no  case  affected  in  the  slightest  degree  the 
moral,  spiritual,  and  religious  truth  made  known.  I  shall  not 
take  time  to  present  further  illustrations  of  this  fact ;  but  I  ask 
you  to  run  over  in  your  minds  the  changed  interpretations  to 
which  I  have  been  alluding,  and  you  will  at  once  perceive  the 
truth  of  what  I  have  said. 

The  next  point  to  which  I  ask  your  attention  is  that  in  some 
places  the  Scriptures  seem  to  speak  so  clearly  that  they  cannot 
possibly  be  misunderstood;  and  yet  that  the  plain  and  obvious 
meaning  in  such  places  is  not  the  true  meaning.  Hence  we 
may  not  accept  as  certainly  true  those  meanings  which  seem  to 
be  plain  and  obvious,  without  further  examination ;  we  must  in 
all  cases  follow  the  rule  already  stated,  of  comparing  Scripture 
with  Scripture.  For  example,  when  our  blessed  Saviour  was 
instituting  that  Supper  by  which  we  still  keep  in  remembrance 
his  death  for  us,  as  he  held  the  bread  in  his  hands,  as  he  took 
up  the  cup  with  the  wine,  he  said,  This  is  my  body ;  this  is  my 
blood.  And  now,  to-day,  the  overwhelming  majority  of  his 
professing  disciples  throughout  the  earth,  learned  and  unlearned, 
accept  as  his  teaching  the  plain  and  obvious  meaning  of  his 
words.  We,  Presbyterians  and  others,  do  not;  we  can  never, 
therefore,  honestly  claim  that  the  plain  and  obvious  sense  is  to 
be  accepted  without  further  examination.  So  when  all  the 
beauty  and  magnificence  of  the  temple  were  pointed  out  to  our 
Saviour,  he  said,  "Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will 
raise  it  up  again."  What  was  here  the  plain  and  obvious 
sense  ?  And  yet  it  was  not  the  true  sense  at  all ;  it  expressed 
no  part  of  the  Saviour's  intended  meaning. 

As  to  the  last  point  in  the  Presbyterian  doctrine  of  the  Bible 
to  which  I  call  your  attention,  I  content  myself  with  reading  it 
as  it  is  expressed  in  the  last  section  on  the  subject  in  our  Con- 
fession of  Faith : 

"The  Supreme  Judge,  by  whom  all  controversies  of  religion 
are  to  be  determined,  and  all  decrees  of  councils,  opinions  of 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


275 


ancient  writers,  doctrines  of  men,  and  private  spirits,  are  to  be 
examined,  and  in  whose  sentence  we  are  to  rest,  can  be  no 
other  but  the  Holy  Spirit,  speaking  in  the  Scripture/' 

I  have  now  done  what  I  could  in  the  time  allotted  me  to  set 
forth  what  I  believe  to  be  the  Presbyterian  doctrine  respecting 
the  Bible,  and  what  I  have  been  teaching  as  such  for  twenty-six 
years  or  more.  Year  by  year  the  several  parts  of  this  doctrine 
have  been  growing  more  and  more  clear  to  me,  and  more  and 
more  precious.  As  you  have  seen,  they  all  tend  toward  the  one 
point — the  setting  forth  of  the  Bible  as  the  very  word  of  God, 
and  the  interpretation  of  that  word  by  the  word  itself,  under 
the  guidance  and  enlightening  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  so 
that  we  may  reach  the  pure  undistorted  meaning  of  that  revela- 
tion which  makes  wise  unto  salvation. 

And  now,  brethren,  I  commend  you  to  God  and  to  the  word 
of  his  grace,  which  is  able  to  build  you  up,  and  to  give  you  an 
inheritance  among  all  them  which  are  sanctified. 


276 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Sanctification  Through  the  Truth. 


"Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth;  thy  word  is  truth." — John  17:17. 

The  chapter  which  I  read  a  few  minutes  since  forms  a  part  of 
the  history  of  our  blessed  Redeemer  during  the  night  in  which 
he  was  betrayed.  Jesus  saw  just  before  him  the  agonies  of 
Gethsemane,  the  mockery  and  scourging,  the  crown  of  thorns 
and  the  purple  robe  in  Pilate's  judgment  hall,  the  shame  and 
the  suffering  of  the  cross,  the  soldier's  spear  stained  with  his 
own  blood ;  he  saw  that  he  was  about  to  be  forsaken  of  his  God 
and  Father ;  and  yet,  having  loved  his  own  which  were  in  the 
world,  he  loved  them  unto  the  end,  and  spent  these  last  hours 
in  instructing  and  comforting  them.  "Let  not  your  heart  be 
troubled,"  said  he.  "I  go  to  prepare  a  place  for  you."  "Abide 
in  me,  and  I  in  you."  "As  the  Father  hath  loved  me,  so  have  I 
loved  you."  "The  Father  himself  loveth  you."  "In  the  world 
ye  shall  have  tribulation ;  but  be  of  good  cheer ;  I  have  over- 
come the  world."  Having  spoken  these  gracious  words  to 
them,  he  offered  for  them  that  prayer  which  I  have  read  to  you ; 
a  prayer  for  them,  but  not  for  them  alone,  but  for  you  and  for 
me  as  well,  for  all  in  all  ages  who  believe  on  him  through  their 
word. 

In  this  prayer  he  asks  for  one  blessing  which  includes  all 
others,  toward  which  all  others  tend,  the  sanctification  of  those 
whom  the  Father  had  given  him:  "Sanctify  them  through  thy 
truth;  thy  word  is  truth."  It  is  to  this  utterance  that  I  wish 
now  to  direct  your  thoughts —  to  the  sanctification  of  the 
believer,  and  its  instrument.  We  beseech  thee,  blessed  Jesus, 
now  to  fulfil  thy  promise,  by  causing  the  Spirit  of  truth  to 
guide  us  into  all  truth. 

By  voluntarily  exposing  himself  to  the  sufferings  of  this 
night,  and  to  the  accursed  death  on  the  cross  the  next  day, 
Jesus  was  presenting  the  highest  proof  of  his  love  for  those 
whom  the  Father  had  given  him.  It  was  that  he  might  accom- 
plish this  death  that  he,  though  God,  had  humbled  himself  to 
become  man;  and  made  himself  a  partaker  of  our  nature,  so 
that,  as  one  of  us,  he  might  stand  in  our  stead;  that,  as  both 
God  and  man,  he  might  be  a  daysman,  a  mediator,  between  God 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


277 


and  us.  He  was  the  ever-living  God,  and  yet  he  suffered  him- 
self to  be  dragged  before  man's  judgment  seat  and  led  to  death 
on  Calvary  by  the  weakling  creatures  of  a  day.  He  had  trans- 
gressed no  law,  he  had  always  delighted  to  do  his  Father's  will ; 
yet  he  was  crucified  as  an  evil-doer,  and  as  if  he  had  been  a 
sinner  of  the  vilest  type.  Even  his  Father,  though  the  God  of 
all  righteousness,  turned  away  his  face  from  him  and  forsook 
him  in  his  hour  of  direst  extremity. 

Here  is  the  deepest  of  all  mysteries  until  the  veil  is  lifted, 
and  we  hear  the  explanation :  You  "did  esteem  him  stricken, 
smitten  of  God,  and  afflicted  ?"  Yes ;  so  he  was ;  but  surely 
"he  hath  borne  our  griefs,  and  carried  our  sorrows;  he  was 
wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised  for  our  iniqui- 
ties; the  Lord  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all."  And  so, 
having  inflicted  punishment  upon  him  for  our  sins,  the  righte- 
ous God  will  not  punish  these  sins  a  second  time,  he  will  not, 
he  cannot,  inflict  a  double  penalty ;  therefore  with  his  stripes  we 
are  healed.  He  was  delivered  for  our  offences ;  he  was  raised 
again  for  our  justification.  As  we  turn  again  to  the  scene  on 
Calvary,  we  are  no  longer  perplexed  by  what  might  have 
seemed  to  be  a  cruel  tyrant  torturing  and  crushing  an  Innocent 
victim;  but  we  see  that  the  holy,  harmless,  undefiled  One  had 
taken  on  him  the  sins  of  the  ungodly,  and  was  suffering  the  just 
punishment  for  these.  , 

Instead  then  of  repelling  us,  God  herein  commendeth  his 
love  toward  us,  in  that,  while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died 
for  us.  But  now  that  we  have  been  cleansed  from  the  guilt  of 
sin,  how  shall  we  be  delivered  from  its  power?  There  is  now 
no  condemnation  to  us  who  through  faith  are  in  Christ  Jesus  ; 
we  are  no  longer  exposed  to  the  wrath  of  God  on  account  of 
our  sins;  as  to  the  debt  of  ten  thousand  talents,  the  infinite 
debt  due  to  him, 

"Nothing,  either  great  or  small, 

Remains  for  me  to  do; 
Jesus  died,  and  paid  it  all, 

Yes,  all  the  debt  I  owe. 
Sin  had  left  a  crimson  stain, 

He  washed  it  white  as  snow." 

But  how  shall  we  become  holy?  The  moment  the  Holy 
Spirit  has  worked  faith  in  us  and  has  thereby  united  us  to 


278 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Christ,  God  pardons  our  sins  and  accepts  us  as  righteous  in  his 
sight,  but  only  for  the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  us. 
What  we  now  desire  and  crave  with  all  our  strength  is  to  be 
renewed  in  the  whole  man  after  the  image  of  God,  to  be  enabled 
more  and  more  to  die  unto  sin  and  live  unto  righteousness. 
How  shall  we  attain  this  unspeakable  blessing?  If  we  go 
through  the  world  asking  this  question,  we  shall  receive  many 
and  various  answers,  and  especially  shall  we  see  the  most 
diverse  methods  adopted  to  reach  the  end  aimed  at.  This 
arises  largely  from  the  different  opinions  which  prevail  as  to 
the  nature  of  holiness.  Granting  that  it  is  freedom  from  sin, 
and  that  sin  is  any  want  of  conformity  unto  or  transgression  of 
the  law  of  God,  we  need  to  ask  further,  What  is  the  law  of 
God?  Recognising  that  holiness  is  godliness  or  Godlikeness, 
we  need  to  know  first  of  all  what  God's  own  character  is. 

Now,  in  the  world  there  are,  and  there  always  have  been, 
multitudes  who  have  worshipped  as  God  or  gods  imaginary 
beings  characterised  by  all  that  is  vile  beyond  description.  The 
more  like  such  gods  their  worshippers  become,  the  more  utterly 
corrupt  and  depraved  they  will  be. 

But  coming  nearer  home,  even  amongst  those  who  profess  to 
worship  our  God,  who  bear  the  Christian  name,  how  many 
there  are  who  fail  to  see  what  holiness  is!  The  story  of  a 
band  of  robbers  with  a  Friar  Tuck  as  a  chaplain  is  not  merely 
a  fanciful  tale,  but  it  represents  the  actual  truth.  Some  think 
they  are  perfoming  holy  acts  when,  after  setting  out  to  commit 
robbery  and  murder,  they  enter  a  church  and  pray  for  the 
blessing  of  God  and  his  saints  upon  their  expedition.  Others, 
who  would  look  with  pity  upon  these  deluded  people,  suppose 
that  they  grow  in  holiness  by  the  frequent  repetition  of  set 
forms  of  prayer,  by  going  on  long  and  painful  pilgrimages,  by 
self-inflicted  bodily  pain,  by  regulating  the  kinds  of  food  eaten 
and  the  times  of  eating — not  according  to  the  laws  of  God,  so  as 
to  keep  the  body,  his  temple,  in  the  most  perfect  condition,  but 
according  to  artificial  rules  which  teach  for  doctrines  the  com- 
mandments of  men,  not  understanding  that  there  is  nothing 
from  without  a  man  that  entering  into  him  can  defile  him. 

Coming  perhaps  still  nearer  home,  do  we  not  all  know  some 
who  regard  holiness  as  consisting  exclusively  in  the  perform- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


279 


ance  of  what  they  call  their  religious  duties  ?  Who  go  to  church, 
pray  with  fervor,  sing  with  all  their  might,  arouse  themselves 
to  the  highest  pitch  of  what  they  suppose  to  be  religious  fervor ; 
and  then  go  away  and  without  a  pang  of  self-reproach  violate 
every  precept  of  the  law  of  God,  and  neglect  every  duty  that 
would  be  prompted  by  either  love  to  God  or  love  to  man.  And 
then — not  to  attempt  vainly  to  do  more  than  point  out  a  few 
of  the  mistakes  others  have  made,  and  which  we  may  be 
tempted  to  make — how  many  seem  to  think  that  holiness  con- 
sists in  an  external  performance  of  duties,  without  regard  to 
the  state  of  the  heart,  or  are  affected  by  the  spirit  of  him  who 
dared  to  go  even  into  God's  own  house  and  tell  him  how  holy 
he  was,  saying:  "God,  I  thank  thee  that  I  am  not  as  other  men 
are,  extortioners,  unjust,  adulterers,  or  even  as  this  publican. 
I  fast  twice  in  the  week,  I  give  tithes  of  all  that  I  possess." 

How  happy  we  are,  that  in  the  midst  of  all  these  perplexing 
and  misleading  pathways,  we  have  a  divine  and  loving  teacher 
and  guide  to  point  out  to  us  the  true  way,  by  which  alone  we 
can  reach  the  desired  end.  "Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth," 
this  Teacher  prays  to  his  Father.  It  is  by  learning  and  follow- 
ing God's  truth,  then,  that  we  are  to  attain  the  holiness  for 
which  the  renewed  soul  longs.  , 

But  God's  truth  is  of  many  kinds — all  truth  of  every  kind 
comes  from  him.  Is  it  by  the  knowledge  of  all  these  kinds  that 
we  are  to  be  made  holy  ? 

By  looking  out  at  the  things  which  God  has  made,  we  are 
filled  with  wonder,  admiration,  and  awe.  When  we  look  up  at 
the  starry  hosts  of  heaven,  whether  we  see  them  with  the  eye  of 
a  child  or  of  an  astronomer,  whether  we  see  in  them  mere 
points  of  light  studding  the  sky*,  or  blazing  suns  of  inconceiva- 
ble magnitude  and  at  inconceivable  distances  from  us  and  from 
each  other,  moving  through  almost  unbounded  space,  we  are  led 
to  exclaim,  "The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God,  and  the 
firmament  sheweth  his  handywork.  Day  unto  day  uttereth 
speech,  and  night  unto  night  showeth  knowledge.  There  is  no 
speech  nor  language;  without  these  their  voice  is  heard." 

Then  we  may  look  abroad  over  this  earth  of  ours,  so  little 
when  compared  with  the  starry  worlds,  so  immense  when  com- 
pared with  ourselves,  whose  foundations  were  laid  by  the  Lord, 


280 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


and  we  see  the  deep  with  which  he  covered  it  as  with  a  gar- 
ment; the  springs  he  sends  into  the  valleys,  which  run  among 
the  hills;  which  give  drink  to  every  beast  of  the  field,  from 
which  the  wild  asses  quench  their  thirst ;  by  which  the  fowls  of 
the  heaven  have  their  habitations,  singing  among  the  branches. 
We  see  him  watering  the  hills  from  his  chambers,  so  that  the 
earth  is  satisfied  with  the  fruit  of  his  works ;  causing  the  grass 
to  grow  for  the  cattle,  and  herb  for  the  service  of  man ;  that  he 
may  bring  forth  food  out  of  the  earth;  and  wine  that  maketh 
glad  the  heart  of  man,  and  oil  to  make  his  face  to  shine,  and 
bread  which  strengtheneth  man's  heart.  We  see  the  high  hills 
which  he  has  provided  as  a  refuge  for  the  wild  goats,  and  the 
rocks  for  the  conies ;  the  beasts  of  the  forests  creeping  forth  in 
the  night ;  the  young  lions  roaring  after  their  prey,  and  yet  thus 
all  unconsciously  seeking  their  meat  from  God.  We  see,  too, 
the  great  and  wide  sea  wherein  are  things  creeping  innumer- 
able, both  small  and  great  beasts;  where  go  the  ships,  and 
where  is  that  leviathan  which  God  has  made  to  play  therein. 
These  also  all  wait  on  him,  that  he  may  give  them  their  meat  in 
due  season.  We  see  that  when  he  only  looks  on  the  earth,  it 
trembles;  when  he  touches  the  hills,  they  smoke.    (Ps.  104.) 

We  may  behold  these  scenes  of  beauty  and  grandeur  merely 
as  they  impress  our  vision ;  or  we  may  see  also  their  wonderful 
relations  to  each  other,  and  the  secret  laws  which  God  has 
ordained  and  by  which  he  governs  the  world ;  in  either  case  we 
must  cry,  "O  Lord,  how  manifold  are  thy  works !  In  wisdom 
hast  thou  made  them  all:  the  earth  is  full  of  thy  riches;  the 
glory  of  the  Lord  shall  endure  forever ;  the  Lord  shall  rejoice 
in  his  works.    Bless  the  Lord,  O  my  soul!" 

But  are  we  sanctified  by  the  knowledge  we  thus  gain  from 
the  study  of  God's  marvellous  works?  We  are  led  indeed  to 
praise  and  admire  his  power  and  his  wisdom  ;  but  we  are  not 
necessarily  drawn  to  love  him,  to  seek  to  obey  his  law  and  to 
be  conformed  to  his  image.  And  if  we  were,  there  is  nothing 
in  the  glories  of  his  material  universe,  or  in  the  laws  by  which 
he  governs  it,  to  show  us  what  is  his  law  as  it  concerns  us,  or 
what  is  his  image,  to  which  we  are  to  be  conformed. 

Further  then  we  may  learn  much  of  God's  truth  from  the 
study  of  the  history  of  our  fellow-men — from  observing  how 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


281 


God  governs  them.  But  if  we  seek  truth  in  this  field  in  order 
that  we  may  thereby  become  holy,  by  observing  what  seems  to 
please  God  and  therefore  is  according  to  his  will,  we  must  soon 
become  sadly  discouraged ;  we  shall  soon  become  convinced 
that  the  knowledge  we  obtain  is  too  imperfect  to  be  of  value  in 
this  direction. 

We  desire  to  be  godly ;  and  we  naturally  assume  even  without 
learning  it  from  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  that  godliness  is  profit- 
able unto  all  things ;  and  therefore  that  we  can  learn  God's  own 
character  and  the  moral  character  which  he  approves  by  observ- 
ing the  kind  of  people  whom  he  favors,  to  whom  he  gives  pros- 
perity. If  we  set  out  in  quest  of  truth  under  the  guidance  of 
this  principle,  we  shall  often  have  the  experience  of  one  of  old 
who  found  that  as  he  attempted  to  follow  this  path,  his  feet 
were  soon  almost  gone,  his  steps  had  well-nigh  slipped.  He 
saw,  as  we  may  see,  a  certain  class  in  whose  death  there  are  no 
bands,  but  their  strength  is  firm ;  who  are  not  in  trouble  as 
other  men,  neither  are  they  plagued  like  other  men ;  whose  eyes 
stand  out  with  fatness ;  who  have  more  than  heart  could  wish. 
And  yet  he  saw  and  we  often  see  that  these  seeming  favorites 
of  God  are  corrupt  and  speak  wickedly ;  that  they  set  their 
mouth  against  the  heavens,  and  mockingly  and  defiantly  say, 
How  doth  God  know?  and  is  there  knowledge  in  the  Most 
High?  He  saw  that  these  are  the  ungodly  who  prosper  in  the 
world ;  they  increase  in  riches.  God  gives  them  their  prosperity 
and  their  riches ;  and  is  not  this  an  evidence  of  his  approval 
of  their  character?  This  perplexed  and  troubled  soul,  on  the 
other  hand,  though  he  had  cleansed  his  heart  and  had  washed 
his  hands  in  innocency,  had  seemingly  done  so  in  vain ;  for  all 
the  day  long  he  was  plagued,  and  was  chastened  every  morning. 

There  is  some  terrible  defect,  then,  in  this  knowledge  and  in 
the  reasoning  based  upon  it;  there  is  clearly  no  safe  guide  to 
holiness  for  us  here. 

Happily  for  him  whom  I  have  been  quoting,  he  saw  the  whole 
truth  before  it  was  too  late ;  and  then  he  was  ready  to  denounce 
his  former  partial  knowledge  as  folly  and  ignorance,  as  that 
which  was  more  worthy  of  a  beast  than  of  a  man. 

But  have  we  not  a  safe  guide  to  holiness  in  the  law  written 
in  our  hearts  ?    May  we  not  do  by  nature  the  things  contained 


282 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


in  the  law?  Perhaps  we  can  most  satisfactorily  answer  these 
questions  by  appealing  to  observation.  Probably  most  of  us 
have  seen  or  at  least  heard  of  persons  of  excellent  character 
who  practically  repudiate  all  law  except  that  inward  sense  of 
right  and  honor  by  which  they  claim  to  be  governed.  They  are 
honest,  upright,  of  the  highest  integrity ;  their  word  is  as  good 
as  their  bond ;  if  they  swear  to  their  own  hurt,  they  change  not ; 
in  all  their  domestic  relations,  they  are  faithful,  gentle,  affec- 
tionate, constantly  seeking  the  good  of  the  loved  ones  around 
them;  beyond  this  inner  circle,  they  are  good  citizens,  are 
benevolent  to  the  needy,  and  take  delight  in  relieving  distress. 
So  in  all  that  is  called  morality,  in  doing  what  is  required  by  the 
golden  rule, — doing  to  others  what  we  desire  should  be  done  to 
us — in  all  their  conduct  towards  their  fellow-men,  they  exhibit 
the  most  praiseworthy  traits ;  they  deserve,  and  should  receive, 
our  sincere  approbation  and  admiration. 

Now,  without  stopping  to  inquire  how  far  all  this  may  result 
from  the  reflected  and  diffused  light  from  God's  written  word, 
we  may  ask  whether  such  a  character  is  complete.  It  is  admir- 
able as  far  as  it  goes ;  but  does  it  go  far  enough  ? 

Can  we  call  one  sinless  who  scrupulously  keeps  his  word,  but 
steals  his  neighbor's  property?  who  is  strictly  honest,  but  is  a 
murderer?  who  performs  his  whole  duty  towards  some  of  his 
fellow-citizens,  but  wilfully  seeks  the  ruin  of  others?  who  loves 
and  cares  for  his  daughters,  but  is  brutally  cruel  and  unjust 
towards  his  sons?  who  unites  in  himself  all  other  excellences, 
but  treats  with  cold  indifference  and  neglect  his  loving  and 
pure  wife?  who  yields  to  the  wishes  of  all  others,  even  when 
unreasonable,  but  listens  to  the  entreaties  of  the  mother  who 
bore  him,  who  constantly  watched  over  him,  supplied  his  every 
want,  and  comforted  him  in  every  sorrow  as  only  a  mother  can 
comfort — who  listens  to  her  as  though  he  heard  her  not ;  turn- 
ing from  her  as  if  he  did  not  even  recognise  her  existence? 
Would  we  say  of  such  a  man  that  he  is  a  good  man — a  holy 
man? 

What  shall  we  say,  then,  of  one  who  loves  his  neighbor  as 
himself,  and  carefully  observes  everything  in  any  way  implied  in 
this  second  commandment,  but  who  does  not  love  the  Lord  his 
God,  who  turns  a  deaf  ear  to  all  his  commands  and  his  invita- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


283 


tions,  who  gives  no  sign  that  he  feels  under  any  obligation  to 
obey  and  serve  him,  or  even  that  he  recognises  his  existence? 
Shall  we  call  him  an  unnatural  monster  who  treats  his  mother 
with  neglect  and  indifference,  and  yet  call  another  a  good  man 
who  so  treats  his  God,  his  Creator,  his  Preserver,  and  his  boun- 
tiful Benefactor?  Surely  it  is  not  such  goodness  or  holiness  as 
this  that  we  crave  for  ourselves.  And  that  the  law  written  in 
the  heart,  the  inward  sense  of  right  for  which  so  much  is 
sometimes  claimed,  never  produces  anything  better,  you  know 
full  well ;  and  you  must  from  what  you  yourselves  have  seen 
and  heard,  agree  that  the  world  by  wisdom  cannot  know  God, 
and  that  even  when  men  may  thus  come  to  have  some  knowl- 
edge of  him,  they  glorify  him  not  as  God,  neither  are  thankful ; 
but  become  vain  in  their  imaginations,  and  their  foolish  heart 
is  darkened;  professing  themselves  to  be  wise,  they  become 
fools ;  they  change  the  truth  of  God  into  a  lie,  and  worship  and 
serve  the  creature  more  than  the  Creator,  who  is  blessed  for 
ever,  Amen.    (Rom.  1.) 

We  end  our  quest  in  these  fields,  then,  with  the  conviction 
that  the  truth  we  need  to  make  us  holy  is  not  to  be  found  in 
them.  We  learn  much  valuable  truth  from  the  study  of  God's 
dealings  with  men ;  we  learn  much  from  reading  the  law  that 
by  nature  is  written  in  our  hearts ;  and  it  is  all  God's  truth;  but 
it  is  not  the  truth  we  need  for  our  sanctification.  Hence  to 
leave  us  in  no  doubt  as  to  the  kind  of  truth  he  meant,  when 
Jesus  prayed,  "Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth,"  he  at  once 
added,  "Thy  word  is  truth/'  It  is  that  part  of  God's  truth 
which  is  contained  in  his  word  that  constitutes  the  instrument 
for  the  sanctification  of  the  believer. 

The  sanctifying  power  of  God's  word  is  abundantly  asserted 
everywhere  in  that  word  itself.  "The  law  of  the  Lord  is  per- 
fect, converting  the  soul;  the  statutes  of  the  Lord  are  right, 
rejoicing  the  heart;  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  is  pure, 
enlightening  the  eyes."  "Wherewithal  shall  a  young  man 
cleanse  his  way?  By  taking  heed  thereto  according  to  thy 
word."  "It  is  the  spirit  that  quickeneth;  the  flesh  prcfiteth 
nothing;  the  words  that  I  speak  unto  you,  they  are  spirit,  and 
they  are  life."  "Ye  are  clean  through  the  word  which  I  have 
spoken  unto  you."    "All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of 


284 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction, 
for  instruction  in  righteousness ;  that  the  man  of  God  may  be 
perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works."  "Ye  have 
purified  your  souls  in  obeying  the  truth  through  the  Spirit." 
"Being  born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible, 
by  the  word  of  God,  which  liveth  and  abideth  for  ever." 

If  now  we  examine  this  word,  we  can  see  for  ourselves  how 
well  fitted  it  is  to  produce  the  effect  here  ascribed  to  it.  We 
shall  be  holy  when  we  are  conformed  to  the  image  of  God's 
Son,  who,  being  the  brightness  of  his  glory,  is  the  express  image 
of  his  person.  To  become  holy,  therefore,  is  to  become  like 
God.  Then  in  order  to  this,  we  must  know  God,  and  what  he 
requires  of  us.    And  this  is  exactly  what  his  word  teaches  us. 

It  teaches  us  that  God  is  a  Spirit,  in  and  of  himself  infinite 
in  being,  glory,  blessedness,  and  perfection;  that  he  Is  eternal, 
unchangeable,  everywhere  present,  almighty,  knowing  all 
things,  most  wise,  most  just,  most  merciful  and  gracious,  long- 
suffering,  and  abundant  in  goodness  and  truth ;  that  he  is  one, 
and  yet  exists  as  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God  the 
Holy  Ghost;  that  he  is  the  Creator  of  all  things,  and  that  he 
rules  over  all ;  that  therefore  he  is  our  Creator,  and  has  endued 
us  with  living,  reasonable,  and  immortal  souls ;  that  he  made 
our  first  parents  after  his  own  image,  in  knowledge,  righteous- 
ness, and  holiness ;  but  that  they  fell,  and  by  their  fall  brought 
themselves  and  us  into  an  estate  of  sin  and  misery, — under 
God's  displeasure  and  curse,  children  of  wrath,  bond-slaves  to 
Satan,  and  justly  liable  to  all  punishment  in  this  world  and  that 
which  is  to  come. 

But  it  teaches  us  further  that  God  has  not  left  us  to  perish  in 
this  estate  of  sin  and  misery,  but  has  freely  provided  and 
offered  to  us  a  mediator,  and  life  and  salvation  by  him,  promis- 
ing and  giving  his  Holy  Spirit  to  work  in  us  faith,  with  all 
other  saving  graces — love,  joy,  peace,  long-suffering,  gentle- 
ness, goodness,  meekness,  temperance — and  also  to  give  us  the 
disposition  and  the  strength  for  all  holy  obedience.  It  tells  us 
that  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son, 
that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have 
everlasting  life.  It  teaches  us  that  the  Son  became  man  that  he 
might  obey  the  law,  suffer,  and  make  intercession  for  us  in  our 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


285 


nature,  have  a  fellow-feeling  of  our  infirmities ;  that  we  might 
receive  the  adoption  of  sons,  and  have  comfort  and  access  with 
boldness  to  the  throne  of  grace ;  that  having  been  delivered  for 
our  offences,  he  was  raised  again  for  our  justification.  It 
shows  us  that  the  risen  Jesus  is  gone  into  heaven,  and  is  on  the 
right  hand  of  God, — angels  and  authorities  and  powers  being 
made  subject  unto  him. 

It  tells  us  how  we  may  become  partakers  of  the  benefits 
which  Christ  has  procured — of  redemption,  of  union  and  com- 
munion with  him  in  grace  and  glory, — how  we  are  justified; 
how  we  are  made  sons  of  God;  how  we  are  sanctified;  how 
that,  by  reason  of  our  inseparable  union  with  Christ,  we  are 
kept  by  the  power  of  God  through  faith  unto  salvation;  and 
then  that  in  glory,  immediately  after  death,  which  has  been 
robbed  of  its  terrors,  we  shall  be  made  perfect  in  holiness, 
beholding  the  face  of  God ;  that  even  these  vile  bodies  shall  at 
length  be  raised  up  by  the  power  of  Christ,  spiritual,  incorrupt- 
ible, and  made  like  to  his  glorious  body ;  and  that  then  we  shall 
be  fully  and  for  ever  freed  from  all  sin  and  misery,  filled  with 
inconceivable  joy,  made  perfectly  holy  and  happy  both  in  body 
and  soul,  in  the  company  of  innumerable  saints  and  angels,  and 
above  all  in  the  immediate  vision  and  fruition  of  God  the 
Father,  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  all 
eternity.    So  shall  we  be  ever  with  the  Lord. 

Such  are  some  of  the  rays  of  light  which  shine  forth  from 
the  word,  showing  us  what  God  is,  what  are  our  relations  to 
him,  and  for  what  we  may  hope.  As  we  gaze  upon  him,  how 
our  souls  must  burn  with  love  to  him,  with  desire  to  please  him 
by  doing  all  his  will,  with  longing  to  be  more  and  more  like  him, 
till  he  shall  appear,  when  the  likeness  shall  be  complete,  for  we 
shall  see  him  as  he  is ;  when  his  divine  power  shall  have  given 
us  all  things  that  pertain  unto  life  and  godliness,  through  the 
knowledge  of  him  that  hath  called  us  to  glory  and  virtue. 

But  in  order  to  become  holy,  we  need  to  know  not  only  what 
we  are  to  believe  concerning  God,  but  also  what  duty  he 
requires  of  us.  Turning  again,  then,  to  his  word,  we  find  that, 
having  showed  us  what  is  good,  he  also  shows  us  what  he 
requires  of  us — to  do  justly,  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly 
with  our  God ;  and  that  however  we  may  vainly  imagine  we  can 


286 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


invent  ways  of  our  own  to  please  him,  the  Lord  has  not  such 
delight  in  burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices  as  in  obeying  his  voice ; 
that  to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice,  and  to  hearken  than  the  fat 
of  rams.  He  tells  us  that  he  requires  of  us  to  fear  the  Lord 
our  God,  to  walk  in  all  his  ways,  and  to  love  him,  and  to  serve 
the  Lord  our  God  with  all  the  heart  and  with  all  the  soul ;  to 
keep  the  commandments  of  the  Lord,  and  his  statutes,  which 
he  has  commanded  us  for  our  good. 

First  by  the  mouth  of  his  servant  Moses,  and  afterwards 
through  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,  he  summed  up  for  us  in  two  brief 
sentences  our  whole  duty:  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God 
with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind. 
This  is  the  first  and  great  commandment.  And  the  second  is 
like  unto  it :  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.  On  these 
two  commandments  hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets. 

Then  to  show  us  more  fully  the  meaning  of  these,  and  how 
we  are  to  manifest  the  love  commanded,  he  gave  the  Ten 
Commandments  on  Mount  Sinai;  and  from  the  beginning  to 
the  end  of  his  word,  he  has  given  us  examples  illustrating  and 
explaining  their  meaning,  so  that  we  cannot  go  astray.  Best 
of  all,  by  what  in  the  last  days  he  spoke  to  us  by  his  Son,  he 
has  caused  us  to  understand  his  statutes  in  all  their  fulness. 
Through  the  Psalmist,  indeed,  he  had  taught  that  his  command- 
ment is  exceeding  broad,  and  that  he  desires  truth  in  the 
inward  parts ;  but  not  until  he  expounded  the  law  who  spake  as 
never  man  spake  could  all  its  spiritual  application  be  seen,  how 
it  applied  to  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart  as  well  as  to 
the  outward  act. 

When  he  was  upon  the  earth,  there  were  many  who  were 
learned  in  the  law,  who  diligently  and  faithfully  studied  it,  and 
earnestly  strove  to  keep  it  in  its  fullest  extent.  But  how  sadly 
they  failed  to  comprehend  it !  As  he  took  up  one  precept 
after  another  which  had  been  uttered  by  them  of  old  time  by 
his  Father's  authority,  and  as  he  explained  their  real  signifi- 
cance, he  exclaimed,  Except  your  righteousness  shall  exceed 
the  righteousness  of  your  teachers  in  the  law  and  of  those  who 
are  most  rigid  in  their  observance  of  it,  ye  shall  in  no  case  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


287 


Now  that  he  has  given  his  help,  has  prayed  to  his  Father  that 
he  would  sanctify  through  his  word  those  who  desire  to  know, 
believe,  and  obey  the  will  of  God  revealed  therein,  we  may  con- 
fidently trust  him  that  he  will  still  further  open  our  under- 
standing that  we  may  understand  the  Scriptures.  Then  having 
understood  them,  and  received  the  truth  with  faith,  love,  meek- 
ness, and  readiness  of  mind,  and  having  hid  it  in  our  hearts,  it 
will  most  assuredly  bring  forth  fruit  in  the  sanctification  of  our 
souls. 

There  remains  one  question  to  be  answered  which  is  sug- 
gested by  the  words  we  have  been  considering,  namely,  What 
is  the  word  of  God?    Where  is  it  to  be  found? 

Jesus,  the  offerer  of  the  prayer,  has  not  left  us  in  doubt  as 
to  the  answer,  for  he  habitually  used  this  term  to  describe  the 
Scriptures,  made  up  of  what  we  now  call  the  Books  of  the  Old 
Testament.  These  constituted  the  word  to  which  he  constantly 
referred  as  to  the  standard  of  truth.  Many,  even  amongst 
Christians,  are  in  the  habit  of  thinking  lightly  of  these  books ; 
but  certainly  in  this  they  do  not  manifest  the  spirit  of  Christ; 
for  according  to  his  testimony,  they  are  God's  truth,  and  like 
their  Author  are  unchangeable,  and  absolutely  perfect  in  every 
particular ;  whilst  it  is  true  that  in  them,  as  elsewhere,  are  many 
things  hard  to  be  understood,  which  they  that  are  unlearned 
wrest  to  their  own  destruction. 

It  is  in  the  writings  of  Moses  and  the  prophets  that  we  find 
the  very  word  of  God,  for  God  spoke  through  them. 

Then  to  these  Scriptures  as  they  were  when  Jesus  was  speak- 
ing, must  be  added  the  record  of  his  own  blessed  words  which 
we  now  have,  and  also  those  utterances  of  which  one  apostle 
could  say,  "We  thank  God  without  ceasing,  because,  when  ye 
received  the  word  of  God  which  ye  heard  of  us,  ye  received  it 
not  as  the  word  of  men,  but  as  it  is  in  truth,  the  word  of  God, 
which  effectually  worketh  also  in  you  that  believe ;"  and 
another,  placing  the  words  of  the  apostles  on  an  equal  footing 
with  those  of  the  holy  prophets,  "I  stir  up  your  minds  by  way 
of  remembrance,  that  ye  may  be  mindful  of  the  words 
which  were  spoken  before  by  the  holy  prophets,  and  of  the 
commandments  of  us,  the  apostles  of  the  Lord  and  Saviour." 


288 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Here,  then,  we  have  the  full  and  complete  word  of  God, 
through  which  we  are  to  be  sanctified,  if  sanctified  at  all. 

Should  any  one  still  ask,  How  may  we  know  that  the  Scrip- 
tures of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  the  word  of  God, 
and  therefore  absolutely  true  in  every  particular,  I  would 
answer  in  the  words  of  our  Confession:  "We  may  be  moved 
and  induced  by  the  testimony  of  the  Church  to  an  high  and 
reverent  esteem  for  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  and  the  heavenliness 
of  the  matter,  the  efficacy  of  the  doctrine,  the  majesty  of  the 
style,  the  consent  of  all  the  parts,  the  scope  of  the  whole, 
(which  is  to  give  all  glory  to  God,)  the  full  discovery  it  makes 
of  the  only  way  of  man's  salvation,  the  many  other  incompara- 
ble excellences,  and  the  entire  perfection  thereof,  are  arguments 
whereby  it  doth  abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the  word  of 
God ;  yet,  notwithstanding,  our  full  persuasion  and  assurance 
of  the  infallible  truth  and  divine  authority  thereof,  is  from  the 
inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  bearing  witness  by  and  with 
the  word  in  our  hearts." 

We  have  thus  seen  what  sanctification  is,  and  how  it  is 
effected.  Do  you  desire  it  for  yourselves?  I  will  not  at  this 
time,  though  knowing  the  terror  of  the  Lord,  attempt  to  per- 
suade you,  by  reminding  you  that  without  holiness  no  man  shall 
see  the  Lord.  But  speaking  to  you  as  the  children  of  God,  and 
knowing  that  if  you  have  indeed  been  born  again,  if  you  have 
been  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  you  cannot  but  long  to  be 
pure  and  holy,  I  would  point  you  to  Jesus  your  Saviour  plead- 
ing with  the  Father  to  make  you  holy,  and  showing  you  the 
means  which  the  Father  will  use  if  he  hears  the  prayer.  He 
has  already  answered  to  this  extent — that  he  has  placed  the 
word  in  your  hands ;  will  you  hide  it  in  your  hearts?  Will  you 
constantly  carry  it  as  a  lamp  to  your  feet,  a  light  to  your  path  ? 
If  you  will,  and  when  you  fail  to  comprehend  it,  ask  wisdom  of 
the  Father,  he  will  give  you  liberally;  and  so  will  he  sanctify 
you  through  his  word,  which  is  his  truth. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


289 


"Wherewithal  Shall  a  Young  Man  Cleanse  His 

Way?" 


Baccalaureate  Sermon  to  the  Students  of  South  Caro- 
lina College,  June  27,  1892. 


A  few  years  ago,  my  young  friends,  you  left  your  homes, 
where  you  had  been  nurtured  and  guarded  by  the  love  and  care 
of  your  fathers  and  mothers — you  left  those  homes  to  come  to 
form  part  of  this  community,  which  is  in  many  ways  only  a 
larger  family  living  in  a  somewhat  different  home.  In  the 
earlier  one,  a  mother's  hand,  moving  in  obedience  to  a  mother's 
heart,  provided  for  your  wants,  soothed  your  sorrows,  and 
guided  your  feet  in  the  pathway  of  virtue  and  truth;  the 
strength  and  wisdom,  the  good  counsel  and  admonitions,  of  a 
father  were  always  yours  to  protect  you  from  harm  from  with- 
out and  to  keep  you  from  straying  from  right  ways.  Here, 
though  deprived  of  this  loving  tenderness  and  watchful  guid- 
ance, you  placed  yourselves  under  the  care  of  those  who  have 
daily  felt  in  you  only  less  than  a  parent's  interest  and  desire 
for  your  welfare,  and  who  have  been  ready,  not  merely  to  aid 
you  in  the  training  of  your  minds  and  in  the  gaining  of  knowl- 
edge, but  in  that  which  is  so  much  better: — to  become  good, 
upright,  pure,  honorable  men. 

And  now  you  are  about  to  leave  this  second  home.  When 
leaving  the  first,  you  must  have  looked  forward  with  some 
apprehension,  as  you  could  not  know  how  well  the  second  might 
deserve  the  name,  so  often  given  it,  of  bountiful  fostering 
mother.  You  could  not  see  the  arms  open  to  receive  you,  the 
safeguards  to  be  thrown  around  you,  the  warm  friendships  you 
would  form  with  those  whom  you  would  meet,  so  that  brother- 
hood is  by  no  means  too  strong  a  word  to  describe  your 
relationship  with  many  of  your  companions.  But  now,  after 
having  for  a  few  years  enjoyed  all  these,  and  being  again  about 
to  leave  your  companions  and  friends,  those  who  love  you  and 
have  ever  been  ready  to  help  you,  it  would  not  be  strange  if  you 
should  look  out  into  the  world  you  are  about  to  enter  with  mis- 
giving and  even  with  fear.  You  have  heard  that  that  world  is 
19— w 


290 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


cold,  and  selfish,  and  hard ;  that  on  every  side  you  will  be  beset 
by  those  who  will  strive  to  injure  and,  still  worse,  to  corrupt 
you;  and  you  know  that  you  must  face  all  difficulties  and 
dangers  alone.  You  have  now  reached  the  coveted  rank  of 
men,  and  in  this  you  no  doubt  rejoice.  You  are  no  longer  to 
be  under  the  direction  or  control  of  others ;  you  will  be  inde- 
pendent, and  will  choose  for  yourselves  the  paths  you  are  to 
pursue.  And  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  profound  gratitude  for 
parental  care  and  for  that  which  is  only  second  to  it,  not 
inconsistent  with  true  loyalty  to  the  past,  that  you  rejoice  that 
you  have  reached  that  stage  in  life  when  you  are  to  act  for 
yourselves,  and  that  henceforth,  instead  of  being  subject  to  the 
authoritative  guidance  of  others,  you  will  choose  your  guides 
for  yourselves.  You  will  still  have  guides;  for  no  sane  man 
can  imagine  it  possible  to  find  his  own  way  through  a  world 
covered  over  with  a  labyrinthine  net-work  of  paths  leading  in 
every  conceivable  direction.  Your  independence  will  consist, 
not  in  having  no  guides,  but  in  having  sole  power  to  choose 
your  guides.    And  with  this  power  comes  the  responsibility. 

May  it  not  be  profitable,  then,  to  pause  on  the  threshold 
where  you  stand,  and  seek  to  choose  wisely  who  and  what  shall 
be  the  guides  of  your  pathway  through  life? 

Besides  the  reason  I  have  just  hinted  at  why  we  need  guides 
— that  we  are  too  ignorant  to  recognise  the  paths  which  lead 
in  the  directions  in  which  we  wish  to  go — there  is  another 
which  is  even  more  important:  that  is,  that  we  are  not  fit  to 
guide  ourselves  even  when  we  know  the  right  way.  We  need 
some  one  to  control  us  as  well  as  give  us  the  needful  knowledge. 
He  knows  little  of  himself  who  does  not  know  this  to  be  true. 
All  men  unite  in  asserting  it,  the  heathen  philosopher  and  poet 
as  earnestly  as  the  apostle  of  Christ.  If  a  Paul  had  said,  "That 
which  I  do  I  allow  not;  for  what  I  would,  that  do  I  not;  but 
what  I  hate,  that  do  I" — an  Ovid  has  said,  "I  see  and  approve 
the  better  things :  I  follow  the  worse."  Hence  our  need  of  a 
guide  to  lead  as  well  as  to  point  out  the  way. 

It  is  not  enough  to  cause  us  to  avoid  them,  to  know  where 
the  miry  ways  are;  we  need  to  be  inspired  with  the  desire  to 
walk  only  in  the  clean  paths.  The  good,  the  right,  is  constantly 
spoken  of  as  the  pure,  the  clean,  the  untarnished  and  untainted, 


HIS  TEACHINGS, 


291 


the  spotless,  the  stainless ;  while  the  evil,  the  wrong,  the  base, 
is  called  impure,  corrupt,  unclean,  polluted.  Since,  then,  you 
find  in  yourselves  a  tendency  to  do  wrong,  and  since  you  know 
there  is  so  much  in  the  world  to  tempt  you  from  the  right — 
corruption  within,  temptation  without — the  most  important 
question  that  you,  my  young  friends,  can  possibly  ask  at  this 
moment  is,  "Wherewithal  shall  a  young  man  cleanse  his  way?" 

Now,  is  this  question  merely  a  despairing  cry,  forced  from 
you  by  a  sight  of  the  dangers  before  you,  but  without  any 
expectation  that  a  helpful  answer  will  be  heard?  Often  in  the 
face  of  impending  peril,  in  view  of  the  approach  of  what  we 
look  upon  as  terrible  calamity,  we  utter  such  a  cry,  calling  for 
help,  though  we  may  well  know  that  no  help  will  come — that 
the  dreaded  blow  must  fall.  Or  may  we  hope  for  an  answer 
on  which  we  may  with  confidence  rely ;  which  will  bring  us  to  a 
guide  ready  and  able  to  conduct  us  at  every  moment  in  the 
right  path — at  once  freeing  us  from  all  inward  tendency  and 
desire  to  go  astray,  and  rendering  powerless  all  outward  temp- 
tation that  would  turn  us  from  the  clean  pure  way?  Thank 
God,  we  have  such  an  answer ;  suggested  in  connexion  with  the 
question  when  it  was  written  long  ago,  "Wherewithal  shall  a 
young  man  cleanse  his  way?"    That  answer  is,  "By  taking 

HEED  THERETO  ACCORDING  TO  THY  WORD."      (Ps.  119  :9.) 

But  what  and  whose  word  is  this  of  which  so  positive  a 
statement  is  made,  and  on  which  we  are  thus  called  to  rely  with 
such  implicit  confidence?  Is  it  the  word  of  some  erring  mortal 
like  ourselves,  which  is  likely  to  be  sometimes  wrong  even 
though  generally  right?  No,  it  is  the  word  of  God:  not  of  an 
"unknown  God,"  such  as  the  learned  Athenians  ignorantly 
worshipped  of  old;  but  of  the  almighty  personal  God,  w7ho 
created  the  heavens  and  the  earth ;  who  created  man  in  his  own 
image,  forming  him  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  breathing  into 
him  the  breath  of  life,  and  causing  him  to  become  a  living  soul ; 
for  whom  he  has  every  moment  since  manifested  his  care ;  for 
his  sake  sparing  not  even  his  only  begotten  and  well-beloved 
Son;  yea,  it  is  the  word  of  God,  who  is  the  God  and  Father  of 
our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ ;  and  who  at  sundry  times 
and  in  divers  manners  spake  in  time  past  unto  the  fathers 
by  the  prophets,  and  hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto  us  by 


292 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


his  Son ;  it  is  the  word  of  this  God,  thus  spoken,  and  through 
his  goodness  transmitted  to  us.  If  you  examine  this  word, 
with  open  and  candid  minds,  subjecting  it  to  every  test  by  which 
truth  is  distinguished  from  falsehood,  you  will  most  assuredly 
find  it  true  in  every  syllable,  wholly  free  from  error,  the  very 
word  of  the  Lord  God  of  truth  and  righteousness ;  and  there- 
fore a  guide  on  which  you  may  most  securely  rest. 

Should  anything  more  be  needed,  I  might  safely  appeal  not 
merely  to  your  limited  experience  and  observation,  but  to  the 
experience  and  observation  of  all  men,  in  all  ages,  the  world 
over.  In  many  of  your  studies  here,  you  have  been  encouraged 
to  submit  to  experimental  proof  the  principles  taught  you ;  you 
have  tried  the  experiments  yourselves,  and  you  have  listened  to 
the  trustworthy  testimony  of  those  who  had  done  likewise ;  and 
if  the  results  always,  without  exception,  corresponded  with  the 
predictions,  you  no  longer  had  the  slightest  doubt  of  their  truth. 
Now,  with  many  years  of  experience  and  observation,  I  testify 
to-night  that  no  man  whom  I  have  known  or  of  whom  I  have 
ever  heard  has  taken  heed  to  his  way  according  to  God's  word, 
whose  way  was  not  thereby  made  spotlessly  clean.  I  am  sure 
that  with  your  briefer  experience  you  are  ready  to  bear  the 
same  testimony.  And  no  man  ever  lived,  whatever  his  opinion 
of  this  word  in  other  respects,  who  could  truthfully  bear  any 
other.  Where  the  way  has  not  been  cleansed,  where  there  has 
been  corruption,  impurity,  vileness  of  any  kind,  it  has  been 
where  heed  thereto  was  not  taken  according  to  this  precious 
cleansing  word. 

Let  us  now  look  at  some  of  the  methods  by  which  this  word 
produces  its  cleansing  effect ;  or,  in  other  words,  leads  to  holi- 
ness in  character  and  life. 

We  have  already  seen  that  in  order  to  do  right,  it  is  not 
enough  to  know  what  is  right.  Yet,  while  it  is  not  enough,  it  is 
nevertheless  necessary.  We  learn  here,  then,  first  of  all,  that 
God  himself  is  the  standard  of  right,  and  that  in  us  obedience  to 
his  will  and  conformity  to  his  image  constitute  the  right.  He 
created  our  first  parents  in  his  own  image ;  and  the  restoration 
of  that  image  in  us  embraces  and  involves  all  else  that  is  desira- 
ble. We  are  to  "put  on  the  new  man,  which  is  renewed  in 
knowledge  after  the  image  of  him  that  created  him."  Through 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


293 


the  ' 'exceeding  great  and  precious  promises"  ''given  unto  us," 
we  may  be  "partakers  of  the  divine  nature,  having  escaped  the 
corruption  that  is  in  the  world  through  lust."  We  are  to  be 
''perfect,  even  as  our  Father  which  is  in  heaven  is  perfect." 
"Let  your  heart  therefore  be  perfect  with  the  Lord  our  God, 
to  zi'alk  in  his  statutes,  and  to  keep  his  commandments." 

Having  taught  us  that  perfection  with  the  Lord  our  God  is  to 
walk  in  his  statutes  and  to  keep  his  commandments,  we  ask  our 
guide  what  these  are  and  receive  as  the  all-comprehending 
reply,  "What  doth  the  Lord  thy  God  require  of  thee  but  to 
fear  the  Lord  thy  God,  to  walk  in  all  his  ways,  and  to  love 
him,  and  to  serve  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart  and  with 
all  thy  soul,  to  keep  the  commandments  of  the  Lord,  and  his 
statutes,  which  I  command  thee  this  day  for  thy  good?''  This, 
first  given  us  by  the  mouth  of  Moses,  is  repeated  by  him  who 
is  greater  than  Moses,  when  asked,  "Master,  which  is  the  great 
commandment?"  "Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all 
thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  mind ;  this  is 
the  first  and  great  commandment."  And  then  he  adds,  "And 
the  second  is  like  unto  it.  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as 
thyself.  On  these  two  commandments  hang  all  the  law  and  the 
prophets." 

But  our  guide  does  not  leave  us  with  these  general  rules.  It 
goes  on  to  tell  us  what  is  involved  in  these  two  great  com- 
mands. It  gives  us  the  Ten  Commandments  and  explains  and 
illustrates  these  in  numberless  ways  to  show  us  more  particu- 
larly the  paths  in  which  we  should  walk. 

First,  then,  our  love  to  God,  the  place  he  holds  in  our  hearts, 
must  be  supreme;  he  is  a  jealous  God — he  will  suffer  no  rival 
on  the  throne  of  our  affections. 

Next,  in  the  expression  of  our  love  and  adoration,  in  our 
worship,  we  are  not  to  use  methods  of  our  own  devising,  but  to 
confine  ourselves  strictly  to  the  modes  he  has  prescribed. 
"Behold,  to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice,  and  to  hearken  than  the 
fat  of  rams."  In  vain  will  be  our  worship,  if  we  teach  or 
accept  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men. 

Then  our  way  cannot  be  clean  if  we  fail  profoundly  to  rever- 
ence and  honor  the  Lord  our  God,  if  we  take  his  name  in  vain, 
or  profane  in  any  way  his  titles,  word,  or  works,  or  anything 


294 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


whereby  he  maketh  himself  known.  Possibly  we  may  think 
lightly  of  this  sin,  attributing  it  to  thoughtlessness,  committed 
without  any  intention  of  wrong-doing;  but  so  God  does  not 
regard  it;  the  All-Powerful  Judge  not  merely  does  not  look 
upon  it  as  consistent  with  love  to  himself,  but  says  with  empha- 
sis that  he  ''will  not  hold  him  guiltless  that  taketh  his  name 
in  vain.,, 

It  is  next  pointed  out  to  us  that  while  all  our  time  is  to  be 
spent  in  pure  and  holy  acts,  yet  one  day  in  seven  is  to  be 
devoted  more  especially  to  the  worship  of  God  and  communion 
with  him,  and  to  deeds  of  love  and  mercy  to  our  fellow-men. 
To  this  end,  while  it  is  our  imperative  duty  to  labor  diligently 
six  days  of  the  seven,  we  are  under  special  obligation  to  abstain 
from  our  ordinary  employments  and  pursuits  on  the  seventh, 
that  we  may  spend  it  in  the  services  which  the  Lord  of  the 
Sabbath  hath  assigned  us. 

Having  thus  warned  us  against  violations  of  the  first  and 
great  commandment,  the  word  puts  us  on  our  guard  also  against 
the  transgressions  of  the  second,  to  which  the  Omniscient  Eye 
sees  we  are  prone. 

You  are  now  near  an  age  at  which  you  will  no  longer  be 
under  the  legal  control  of  father  and  mother ;  but  the  day  will 
never  come  when  you  will  not  owe  love  and  honor  to  those  who 
so  eagerly  welcomed  you  at  your  birth.  The  frivolous,  foolish, 
light-minded  youth  sometimes  forgets  this;  but  the  guiding 
word  is  at  hand  to  recall  him  from  his  ingratitude  by  this  first 
commandment  with  promise. 

As  the  youth  mingles  day  by  day  with  his  fellow-men,  he  is 
sure  not  infrequently  to  meet  with  those  who  disregard  his 
rights,  it  may  be  with  some  who  offer  him  insult  or  do  him 
wanton  injury,  or  in  other  ways  excite  him  into  flaming  anger. 
Tempted  by  his  unrestrained  passion  to  avenge  himself,  he 
attacks  the  offender,  he  is  ready  even  to  take  his  life.  His 
monitor's  voice  may  then  be  heard,  "Thou  shalt  not  kill." 
"Avenge  not  yourselves,  but  rather  give  place  unto  wrath." 
"Say  not  thou,  I  will  recompense  evil ;  but  wait  on  the  Lord, 
and  he  shall  save  thee."  It  goes  further,  and  warns  against 
the  cause  of  murder.  You  are  told  that  hatred,  malice,  desire 
for  revenge,  lead  to  murder ;  that  in  the  sight  of  God  they  are 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


295 


murder.  Let  this  advice  be  heeded,  and  murder,  in  thought  as 
well  as  in  the  shedding  of  blood,  must  disappear  from  the 
earth:  "Let  all  bitterness,  and  wrath,  and  anger,  and  clamor, 
and  evil  speaking,  be  put  away  from  you,  with  all  malice ;  and 
be  ye  kind  one  to  another,  tender-hearted,  forgiving  one 
another,  even  as  God  for  Christ's  sake  hath  forgiven  you." 

But  besides  the  temptations  which  assail  the  young  man, 
inciting  him  to  anger  and  unrestrained  wrath,  to  murder  in 
thought  if  not  in  deed,  there  are  others  which  beset  him  on 
every  side,  seeking  to  entice  him  from  the  paths  of  purity  by 
every  alluring  promise,  inflaming  him  by  the  prospect  of  unholy 
pleasures  to  walk  in  forbidden  ways,  while  skilfully  concealing 
the  death  in  which  they  end.  Against  these  the  guide  utters 
precept  after  precept,  warning  after  warning,  in  tones  of 
entreaty  and  expostulation  that  surely  the  most  insensible  must 
hear.  The  folly,  the  danger,  the  sin  are  shown;  woe  to  him 
who  hears  and  heeds  not;  who,  void  of  understanding,  listens 
to  the  stranger  with  flattering  words,  forsaking  the  guide  of  her 
youth;  who  enters  the  house  that  inclineth  unto  death,  and 
paths  that  descend  unto  the  dead ;  who  goes,  as  an  ox  goeth  to 
the  slaughter,  or  as  a  fool  to  the  correction  of  the  stocks ;  deaf 
to  the  warning  that  they  are  in  the  way  to  hell,  going  down  to 
the  chambers  of  death;  not  knowing  that  the  dead  are  there, 
and  that  they  are  amongst  guests  who  are  in  the  depths  of  hell. 
Nor  are  the  warnings  given  against  outward  acts  alone,  but  the 
youth  is  also  cautioned  against  the  wanton  look,  imagination, 
or  desire;  so  earnestly,  that  he  is  urged,  if  his  right  eye  do 
cause  him  to  offend,  to  pluck  it  out  and  cast  it  from  him ;  for 
the  reason  that  it  is  better  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God 
with  one  eye  than  having  two  eyes  to  be  cast  into  hell  fire. 

In  taking  your  places  amongst  men,  no  longer  to  be  directly 
dependent  upon  others  for  your  support,  you  expect  to  seek, 
with  other  good  things,  the  possession  of  property;  by  your 
labor  and  skill,  you  look  forward  to  making  your  own  living 
by  engaging  in  some  kind  of  business,  and  even  to  accumulate 
wealth,  if  you  can.  And  the  word  I  am  commending  to  you  as 
your  guide  does  not  forbid  or  discourage  such  desires;  it 
encourages  them  instead,  and  shows  how  they  may  most  effect- 
ively be  realised.  It  describes  riches  as  a  good — not  the  highest, 


296 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


by  any  means — but  still  as  good ;  and  then  it  tells  how  they  may 
be  gained — namely,  by  diligence,  industry,  thrift.  The  hand  of 
the  diligent  maketh  rich.  He  that  tilleth  his  land  shall  be 
satisfied  with  bread.  In  all  labor  there  is  profit.  Seest  thou  a 
man  diligent  in  his  business  ?  He  shall  stand  before  kings ;  he 
shall  not  stand  before  mean  men.  We  command  and  exhort 
by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  that  with  quietness  they  work,  and  eat 
their  own  bread. 

Then  as  a  rule  to  control  us  in  our  gains,  as  part  of  that  which 
bids  love  to  our  neighbors  as  ourselves,  it  gives  us  this :  "Thou 
shalt  not  steal."  Possibly  we  may  at  first  be  inclined  to  resent 
the  giving  of  such  a  rule  to  us.  But  let  us  remember  that  this 
commandment,  like  all  the  others,  is  exceeding  broad.  It  does 
not  merely  forbid  one's  being  a  vulgar  thief ;  but  it  forbids  our 
doing  anything  and  everything  that  directly  or  indirectly  inter- 
feres with  the  rights  of  our  neighbors  or  in  any  way  regards 
them  less  sacred  than  our  own.  It  forbids  not  merely  embez- 
zlement, the  gaining  of  money  by  false  pretences,  fraud, 
cheating,  gaming,  taking  advantage  of  others,  but  also  all 
misappropriation  or  waste  of  the  money  of  others,  whether 
those  others  are  private  persons,  corporations,  or  the  State.  It 
requires  the  most  scrupulous  integrity.  It  requires  the  payment 
of  debts,  and  the  prompt  payment  of  them.  It  requires  a  strict 
observance  of  all  contracts  in  their  true  meaning.  It  requires 
perfect  honesty  and  uprightness  in  the  sight  of  men  and  of  God 
who  sees  and  knows  our  inmost  thoughts.  By  taking  heed  to 
these  requirements,  the  young  man  will  effectually  cleanse  his 
way  in  respect  to  all  these  things. 

But  there  are  still  other  directions  in  which  protection  from 
defilement  is  needed.  There  is  one  evil  to  which  the  corrupt 
heart  is  especially  prone,  which  combines  with  all  others,  which 
towers  above  most  others  in  its  enormity,  and  of  which  God 
expresses  his  peculiar  abhorrence.  It  is  the  sin  of  falsehood. 
Temptations  to  commit  most  other  sins  are  not  constantly 
assailing  you;  you  are  hardly  ever  free  for  a  moment  from 
temptation  to  commit  this  one.  Bearing  false  witness  against 
our  neighbor  is  the  form  of  it  mentioned  in  the  Ten  Words ;  but 
this  includes  every  form.  That  against  which  we  are  warned 
is  falsehood,  deceit,  lying,  hypocrisy,  misrepresentation,  dis- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


29? 


simulation,  perjury — all  and  every  departure  from  perfect  and 
absolute  truth.  Now,  the  word  to  which  the  young  man  is 
invited  to  take  heed,  is  full  of  incentives  of  every  kind  to  lead 
him  to  hate  and  avoid  the  false,  to  love  and  practise  the  true. 
It  declares  that  lying  lips  are  an  abomination  to  the  Lord ;  that 
the  Lord  hates  the  lying  tongue;  that  all  liars  have  their  part 
in  the  lake  which  burneth  with  fire  and  brimstone ;  that  into  the 
holy  city,  the  New  Jerusalem,  there  shall  in  no  wise  enter 
anything  that  maketh  a  lie ;  that  without  are  dogs,  and  whoso- 
ever loveth  and  maketh  a  lie.  It  sets  forth  not  only  God's 
hatred  and  detestation  of  lying,  but  that  which  is  felt  also  by 
all  good  men.  Then  on  the  other  hand  it  holds  up  to  view  the 
beauty  and  attractiveness  of  truth,  and  exalts  the  character  of 
him  who  speaks  the  truth.  This  is  the  answer  to  the  question, 
"Lord,  who  shall  abide  in  thy  tabernacle?  who  shall  dwell  in 
thy  holy  hill?"  "He  that  speaketh  the  truth  in  his  heart;  he 
that  sweareth  to  his  own  hurt,  and  changeth  not.  He  that 
doeth  these  things  shall  never  be  moved."  And  "they  that  deal 
truly  are  his  delight." 

What  a  changed  world  this  would  be  if  the  truth  and  nothing 
but  the  truth  were  spoken;  if  slander,  detraction,  malicious 
gossip,  evil-speaking  of  every  kind,  were  unknown.  How  far 
can  you  rely  on  the  representations  of  the  seller  of  property  as 
to  its  real  value  and  its  defects?  How  many  buyers  are  there 
who  say,  It  is  naught,  it  is  naught;  but  who  when  they  have 
gone  away,  utter  their  boastings?  How  far  can  you  trust  the 
statements  even  of  one  who  professes  to  be  contending  for  the 
truth  of  God,  when  he  formulates  the  creed  and  describes  the 
practices  of  an  antagonist?  How  much  have  we  a  right  to 
believe  of  the  assertions  of  a  political  partisan  respecting  the 
principles  of  the  other  party,  the  character  and  aims  of  the 
other  candidate,  the  probable  result  of  the  coming  election? 
How  can  we  learn  the  number  of  soldiers  engaged  in  certain 
battles  and  wars?  So  we  might  go  over  the  whole  range  of 
human  affairs,  and  ask,  Where  can  truth  be  found  ?  The  world 
is  covered  with  wrecks  resulting  from  broken  promises,  deceit, 
falsehood,  and  treachery. 

The  tenth  utterance  in  that  part  of  the  word  we  are  consider- 
ing, to  which  the  young  man  does  well  to  take  heed,  specifically 


298 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


forbids  an  unlawful  desire  for  that  to  which  we  have  no  right ; 
but  it  is  based  on  the  broader  thought  which  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  himself  the  divine  Word,  so  fully  brought  to  view  in  his 
teachings  while  on  earth.  It  is  the  state  of  the  heart  that  deter- 
mines the  outward  act ;  and  even  if  not  followed  by  the  outward 
evil  act  is  itself  sin — uncleanness.  Out  of  the  abundance  of  the 
heart  the  mouth  speaketh.  The  unlawful  desire  leads  to  mur- 
der, to  theft,  to  impurity,  to  lying ;  it  leads  away  from  the  love 
of  God.    As  a  man  thinketh  in  his  heart,  so  is  he. 

In  seeking  to  cleanse  our  way,  therefore,  it  is  not  enough  to 
consider  the  stream;  we  must  more  earnestly  strive  to  secure 
purity  at  the  source,  the  fountain  head.  As  is  the  source,  such 
will  be  the  stream ;  as  is  the  heart,  such  will  be  the  life. 

As  we  saw  at  the  outset,  it  is  not  enough  for  us  to  know  the 
right ;  we  must  also  have  the  desire  and  the  will  and  the  power 
to  do  it.  But  here,  unhappily,  we  find  by  looking  into  our 
hearts,  that,  while  in  a  general  way  we  think  we  would  always 
prefer  doing  right,  we  are  ever  ready,  when  the  special  tempta- 
tion presents  itself,  to  yield  and  to  do  what  we  know  to  be 
wrong.  The  explanation  of  this  sad  fact  is  also  given  in  this 
precious  word.  The  heart,  the  mind,  by  nature  is  enmity 
against  God;  for  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither 
indeed  can  be.  Here  is  the  disease ;  the  same  word  tells  us  of  the 
remedy.  The  heart  must  be  renewed ;  we  must  be  born  again. 
The  prayer  is  set  before  us,  that  we  may  adopt  it  as  our  own : 
"Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  O  God ;  and  renew  a  right  spirit 
within  me."  This  prayer  cannot  be  offered  in  vain.  The 
Hearer  of  Prayer  says :  "I  will  give  them  one  heart,  and  I  will 
put  a  new  spirit  within  them  ;  and  I  will  take  the  stony  heart 
out  of  their  flesh,  and  will  give  them  an  heart  of  flesh."  The 
effect  and  object  of  this  gift,  of  this  new  creation,  is  thus 
stated:  "That  they  may  walk  in  my  statutes,  and  keep  mine 
ordinances,  and  do  them;  and  they  shall  be  my  people,  and  I 
will  be  their  God."  The  new  birth  that  we  need,  the  new 
creation,  the  quickening  that  we  must  have  who  are  dead  in 
sins,  is  given  us  through  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord ;  we  are  "quick- 
ened together  with  him." 

And  here  is  another  part  of  the  cleansing  brought  to  our 
view.    Even  if  we  should  now  know  perfectly  the  will  of  God, 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


299 


and  should  with  a  new  heart  and  new  spirit  keep  all  his  com- 
mandments, should  thus  preserve  our  way  clean  according  to 
his  word,  we  cannot  forget  that  it  is  already  defiled.  Now 
comes  to  us  the  glorious  revelation  from  this  same  word  that 
Jesus  Christ  took  on  himself  our  nature  that  he  might  suffer 
and  die  in  our  stead,  and  thus  cleanse  us  from  all  sin.  Here  is 
offered  us  the  complete  cleansing  we  need — from  the  guilt  of 
sin  and  from  its  power — that  through  the  "blood  of  Christ,  who 
through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  without  spot  to  God, 
our  consciences  may  be  purged  from  dead  works  to  serve  the 
living  God." 

I  have  now  pointed  out  to  you,  my  young  friends,  the  answer 
which  God  gives  in  his  own  word  to  your  anxious  question  as  to 
your  way  through  life,  as  you  are  about  to  enter  on  its  higher 
activities.  If  you  choose  a  way  so  guided  and  directed,  you 
will  find  it  to  be  full  of  pleasantness  and  peace  and  happiness. 
Whatever  afflictions  may  come  upon  you,  whatever  trials  and 
persecutions  may  be  your  lot,  if  only  you  are  walking  in  wis- 
dom's ways,  happiness,  the  truest,  highest,  most  constant  happi- 
ness, will  every  moment  be  yours,  even  when  suffering  the 
most. 

Then  see  whither  it  leads.  However  it  may  appear  to  our 
imperfect  sight,  its  course  is  continually  onward  and  upward; 
it  ends  at  the  open  doors  of  glory,  at  the  gates  of  the  New 
Jerusalem,  the  everlasting  kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ,  where  to  all  who  have  walked  therein  an  entrance 
shall  be  abundantly  ministered. 

And  now,  permit  me  to  entreat  you,  by  my  increasing  interest 
in  you  and  affection  for  you,  by  the  goodness  and  mercy  of 
God,  by  the  love  and  sacrifice  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  to 
decide  to-night,  if  you  have  not  already  done  so,  that  for  the 
cleansing  of  your  way,  you  will  take  heed  thereto  according  to 
God's  holy  word. 

May  the  Holy  Spirit  graciously  incline  and  enable  each  and 
every  one  of  you  so  to  do. 


300 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


The  Word  of  God. 


Baccalaureate  Sermon  to  the  Students  of  South  Caro- 
lina College,  June  27,  1897. 


When  one  is  about  to  set  out  on  a  voyage  he  looks  upon  it  as 
all-important  that  he  shall  be  supplied  with  a  correct  chart  and 
clear  and  trustworthy  sailing  directions.  You,  my  young 
friends,  have  in  the  past  been  largely  under  the  guidance  and 
control  of  others,  who  have  pointed  out  to  you  the  way  in  which 
you  should  go  and  have  daily  aided  you  to  keep  from  straying 
from  it.  But  now  you  are  setting  out  on  life's  voyage  alone, 
when  you  must  be  your  own  guides  in  a  much  truer  sense  than 
ever  before.  And  I  come  to  you  as  you  are  about  to  separate 
and  to  sail  on  unknown  seas,  to  renew  the  offer  to  you  of  a 
chart  in  which  there  is  no  shadow  of  error,  and  sailing  direc- 
tions in  which  you  may  safely  trust ;  in  which,  if  you  do  trust, 
you  shall  surely  be  kept  from  all  real  harm,  from  all  rocks,  and 
shoals,  and  storms,  and  shall  be  brought  without  fail  into  the 
harbor  desired  by  the  pure  and  the  upright  and  the  good.  I 
come  to  offer  you  the  Holy  Bible  as  such  a  chart,  and  as  contain- 
ing such  sailing  directions,  and  I  ask  you  to  spend  with  me  one 
of  the  few  hours  during  which  we  shall  still  be  together,  in 
looking  at  the  Bible,  that  we  may  see  what  it  is,  what  it  teaches, 
what  claim  it  has  to  our  confidence,  our  unhesitating  and  our 
unfailing  trust. 

What,  then,  is  this  Bible?  Whence  does  it  derive  that 
supreme  authority  to  which  I  ask  you  to  bow  with  unquestion- 
ing submission?  And  when  we  have  come  to  regard  its 
authority  as  supreme,  how  are  we  to  know  exactly  what  it 
commands  and  what  it  forbids,  in  a  word,  what  it  teaches,  that 
we  may  be  sure  that  when  we  think  we  are  loyally  obeying  its 
precepts,  we  may  not  be  grossly  violating  them  and  setting 
them  at  naught?  These  and  like  questions  it  is  proposed  now 
to  answer. 

To  the  first  question  I  would  reply :  The  Bible  is  the  word  of 
God. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


301 


Observe,  I  do  not  say  that  the  Bible  contains  the  word  of 
God,  but  that  it  is  the  word  of  God.  It  sometimes  happens  that 
we  can  best  explain  our  meaning  by  comparing  and  contrasting 
what  we  say  with  the  utterances  of  others  on  the  same  subject. 
I  ask  you,  then,  to  notice  carefully  the  difference  between  the 
two  expressions  just  used.  All  who  claim  to  be  Christian 
believers  would  agree  that  the  Bible  contains  the  word  of  God ; 
but  some  would  go  on  to  say,  Yes,  it  contains  his  word,  but 
contains  also  more  or  less  of  what  is  not  his  word.  Hence, 
some  authority  other  than  the  Bible  itself  would  be  needed  to 
decide  which  parts  are  his  word,  and  which  are  not.  With  some 
this  higher  authority  is  the  Church;  with  others  it  is  reason. 
In  the  latter  case  each  reader  must  select  for  himself  those  facts 
which  are  approved  by  his  sense  of  right  and  justice  and  truth ; 
whatever  his  reason  does  not  approve  must  be  rejected  as  no 
part  of  God's  word. 

On  the  other  hand,  I  say  that  the  Bible  is  God's  word ;  mean- 
ing thereby  that  every  word  and  syllable  in  the  Bible  as  first 
written,  from  beginning  to  end,  comes  from  God,  as  is  asserted 
and  claimed  in  the  extracts  from  it  which  I  read  to  you.  and 
therefore  is  absolutely  true;  and  that  the  office  of  reason  is  not 
to  sit  in  judgment  upon  what  is  found  there,  but  solely  to  seek 
to  learn  what  is  the  true  meaning  of  every  part.  And  further, 
that  the  Church  is  equally  powerless  with  reason  to  decide  that 
anything  found  in  the  Bible  is  no  part  of  the  word  of  God. 

I  would  next  ask,  How  has  it  pleased  God  to  give  us  this 
word?  Has  he  written  it  with  his  own  finger  on  tables  of 
stone,  or  uttered  it  in  an  audible  voice  in  the  hearing  of  his 
people?  A  few  sentences  indeed  he  so  gave,  though  we  have 
only  a  record  made  by  man  of  even  these.  But  with  these 
exceptions  he  gave  it  indirectly,  mediately,  through  men.  his 
servants,  in  various  ages  of  the  world.  These  he  inspired  to 
write  down  what  he  would  make  known.  Do  you  ask  what  it 
is  to  inspire — what  inspiration  is?  I  greatly  doubt  whether  a 
full  answer  can  be  given ;  but  it  need  not  surprise  us  that  we 
can  give  no  clear  account  of  how  God  with  unerring  accuracy 
communicates  his  thoughts  to  us,  when  we  remember  how  little 
we  know  of  how  we  communicate  our  thoughts  to  one  another. 
But  so  much  we  know :  That  the  words  of  those  whom  he 


302 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


inspired  he  so  controlled  that  they  exactly  expressed  his 
thoughts  and  so  were  his  words;  and  that  the  inspired  writer 
"was  incapable  of  uttering  or  communicating  any  error  with  the 
inspired  message." 

I  may  ask,  in  the  next  place,  How  do  we  know  that  this  Bible 
is  the  word  of  God  ?  To  this  question,  many  answers,  more  or 
less  satisfactory,  may  be  given,  but  of  these  I  shall  present  only 
a  few. 

Examining  the  Bible,  we  see  that  it  is  made  up  of  a  collection 
of  books  claiming  to  have  been  written  by  various  authors,  who 
lived  at  various  periods,  chiefly  in  lands  bordering  on  the  east- 
ern and  northeastern  shores  of  the  Mediterranean. 

Now  we  may  inquire  into  the  evidence  supporting  these 
claims  just  as  we  would  respecting  books  claiming  to  have  been 
written  by  Caesar  and  Cicero,  Thucydides  and  Xenophon. 
Going  backwards  step  by  step  from  to-day,  we  find  the  evidence 
so  strong  that  these  Roman  and  Grecian  authors  wrote  the 
books  attributed  to  them  that  no  one  thinks  of  doubting  it. 
When  we  apply  the  same  means  of  investigation  to  the  books  of 
the  Bible,  the  evidence  is  vastly  fuller  and  stronger  than  in  the 
case  of  the  classical  works  I  have  referred  to;  it  is  absolutely 
irresistible  so  far  as  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  are  con- 
cerned, and  thoroughly  convincing  as  to  those  of  the  Old 
Testament  as  well.  I  have  not  devoted  very  much  of  my  own 
life  to  this  kind  of  investigation,  but  I  have  gone  far  enough  to 
see  for  myself  that  the  amount  and  kind  of  evidence  are  over- 
whelming, and  such  as  to  leave  the  unbeliever  without  excuse. 

When  we  learn  that  the  books  were  really  written  by  the 
persons  to  whom  they  are  attributed,  and  that  these  persons 
really  performed  the  acts  attributed  to  them,  then  we  have 
reached  the  end  of  our  inquiry;  for  no  man  could  do  the 
miracles  that  they  did  except  God  were  with  him ;  and  no  one 
thus  authorised  of  God  to  speak  in  his  name,  could  write  one 
word  which  was  not  exactly  true  in  the  sense  intended  by  God, 
its  author.  By  such  reasoning  the  fact  has  been  established 
that  the  books  were  written  as  claimed,  and  the  works  which 
they  did  bore  evidence  of  them  that  God  had  sent  them  to  make 
known  his  will. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


303 


For  my  own  part,  I  would  not  care  to  carry  on  this  investiga- 
tion beyond  the  books  of  the  New  Testament;  for  when  the 
truth  of  these  has  been  established,  it  has  at  the  same  time  been 
established  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,  and  is  himself 
God,  and  therefore  that  his  utterances  are  the  highest  and  best 
testimony  we  could  have  to  any  truth. 

Now,  in  every  possible  way,  in  the  strongest,  most  unmistak- 
able language,  he  asserted  the  truth  of  the  "Scriptures,"  of  the 
"law,''  the  "Psalms,"  the  "prophets,"  "Moses  and  the  prophets," 
the  "word."  We  know  with  certainty  what  was  meant  by  these 
terms  in  the  days  of  Jesus  Christ,  namely,  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  as  we  now  have  them.  The  watchful  jealousy  of 
Jews  and  Christians  over  these  books  ever  since  those  days 
leaves  no  room  for  doubt  on.  this  point.  Both  have  claimed 
these  Scriptures  as  their  own,  and  nothing  could  have  been 
added  to  them  or  taken  from  them  without  detection  by  this 
lynx-eyed  vigilance.  Of  these  books,  then,  Jesus  Christ  said 
that  "till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no 
wise  pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled ;"  that  what  is  there 
to  be  read  "was  spoken  by  God ;"  that  in  them  David  spoke  by 
the  Holy  Ghost;  that  "the  Scriptures  must  be  fulfilled;"  that 
"it  is  easier  for  heaven  and  earth  to  pass  than  one  tittle  of  the 
law  to  fail;"  that  in  them  "the  word  of  God  came,  and  the 
Scriptures  cannot  be  broken."  Besides  giving  his  testimony 
directly,  as  in  the  words  I  have  just  quoted  and  others  like 
them,  he  gave  equally  strong  testimony  indirectly,  by  constantly 
assuming  in  everything  he  said  that  these  Scriptures  are  the 
very  word  of  God. 

Therefore,  I  repeat  it,  whenever  it  has  been  proved  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  trustworthy,  to  me  the  question  as  to  the  character 
and  trustworthiness  of  the  Old  Testament  has  lost  all  interest, 
for  I  know  that  it  is  the  word  of  God  as  surely  as  I  know  that 
the  blessed  Jesus,  the  Way  and  the  Life,  is  also  the  Truth. 

But  this  historical  argument  and  the  inferences  derived  from 
it  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  entirely  sufficient,  at  least  for  the 
great  mass  of  mankind.  I  suppose  that  not  very  many  of  you 
have  had,  or  ever  will  have,  the  time  and  the  opportunity  to 
make  for  yourselves  such  a  thorough  examination  of  the  origi- 
nal historical  witnesses  as  to  be  able  to  express  any  independent 


304 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


opinion  of  your  own  respecting  the  value  of  the  testimony  of 
these  witnesses  and  what  that  testimony  proves.  Hence  you 
would  be  obliged  to  take  your  belief  at  second  hand ;  you  could 
form  none  for  yourselves  based  on  a  knowledge  of  the  actual 
facts.  Therefore  you  would  never  be  able  to  rest  with  that 
full  and  absolute  confidence  in  your  belief  that  the  Bible  is  the 
word  of  God  which  is  necessary  to  warrant  you  in  calmly  com- 
mitting to  its  teachings  your  highest  interests  for  time  and  for 
eternity. 

We  see  then  the  desirableness  of  some  other  tests  which  are 
within  easy  reach  of  all  men,  so  that  each  for  himself  may  be 
able  to  form  a  conclusion  from  facts  which  he  may  directly 
observe,  or  which,  though  a  knowledge  of  them  may  depend  in 
part  upon  historical  testimony,  are  universally  admitted  to  be 
true  by  friend  and  foe. 

Passing  by  the  conclusion  which  we  might  justly  reach  from 
a  consideration  of  the  fact  that  without  the  possibility  of  col- 
lusion, the  writers  of  the  sixty-six  separate  books  which  consti- 
tute the  Bible,  written  in  different  languages  and  at  different 
times  during  fifteen  hundred  years,  all  agree  in  their  statements 
and  their  teachings,  I  may  now  offer  another  test. 

Let  us  suppose  that  we  find  in  an  old  library,  all  covered 
with  dust,  a  book  of  which  we  know  not  the  history,  containing 
what  professes  to  be  a  description  of  lands  we  have  never  seen, 
and  a  series  of  explicit  statements  as  to  the  results  of  carefully 
described  experiments  there  set  forth.  Our  neighbors  and  our 
friends  tell  us  that  they  have  visited  the  lands  spoken  of,  and 
have  performed  the  experiments  described,  and  they  have  found 
everything  to  agree  exactly  with  what  is  told  in  the  dust- 
covered  volume.  You  could  not  help  believing  that  the  book 
had  been  written  by  truthful  persons  who  were  acquainted  with 
the  subjects  about  which  they  had  written,  unless  you  rejected 
the  testimony  of  your  neighbors,  whom  you  trusted  in  every- 
thing else,  and  unless  you  refused  to  believe  in  the  honesty  and 
freedom  from  trickery  of  those  who  performed  these  experi- 
ments before  your  eyes.  So  far  as  your  belief  in  the  book  is 
concerned,  you  would  not  care  at  all  about  its  history;  your 
belief  is  independent  of  everything  except  what  you  have  heard 
from  your  neighbors  and  seen  for  yourselves. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


305 


Now  apply  this  test.  Here  I  show  you  a  book  which  is  full 
of  descriptions  of  many  countries,  with  their  seas  and  lakes 
and  rivers,  their  mountains  and  their  plains,  their  cities  and 
their  villages.  Your  neighbors  who  have  visited  these  countries 
tell  you  that  they  have  found  everything  exactly  as  described. 

But  further:  this  book  tells  you  that  if  any  one  does  things 
there  set  forth,  certain  results  will  be  sure  to  follow.  For 
example,  that  whosoever  really  believes  in  Jesus  Christ,  of 
whom  much  is  there  said,  becomes  wholly  transformed  in  his 
character.  If  he  has  been  a  thief,  he  becomes  honest;  if  he  has 
been  a  turbulent  ruffian,  he  becomes  peaceful  and  kind;  if  he 
has  been  an  unclean  debauchee,  he  becomes  chaste ;  if  a  drunk- 
ard, he  abandons  his  cups — whatever  he  may  have  been,  he  now 
becomes  upright,  pure,  honorable,  and  faithful  in  all  the  rela- 
tions of  life.  Then  further,  that  in  all  this  he  is  influenced  by 
love  of  holiness  and  hatred  of  sin;  that  his  desire  to  do  right 
and  to  abstain  from  all  that  is  wrong,  even  in  his  most  secret 
thoughts,  is  constantly  becoming  stronger.  And  also  that  he 
will  come  to  enjoy  a  sense  of  God's  love;  that  though  he  may 
have  been  at  times  terribly  agitated  and  tormented  when  he 
thought  of  his  evil  deeds  and  his  evil  life,  he  will  now  enjoy 
peace  of  conscience,  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  hope  of  happi- 
ness forever  in  God's  presence  beyond  the  grave.  Now,  here 
is  a  great  variety  of  results  which  this  book  tells  you  will  follow 
from  the  belief  in  a  being  of  whom  it  gives  a  full  history ;  and 
many  of  them  are  of  such  a  nature  that  you  can  see  for  your- 
selves whether  or  not  the  statement  is  true.  I  appeal  to  you, 
then,  have  you  not  observed  in  some  instances,  in  many 
instances,  exactly  such  results  as  I  have  described  following  a 
professed  belief  and  practical  acceptance  of  the  statements 
made  respecting  Jesus  Christ?  I  go  further,  and  ask  if  you 
ever  saw  or  heard  of  a  case  where  you  had  reason  to  think  this 
profession  of  belief  was  sincere,  where  the  results  described  did 
not  follow?  True,  some  of  them  are  such  that  you  cannot  see 
them,  and  you  have  to  take  the  word  of  others  as  to  their  exist- 
ence; but  many  of  the  transformations  you  can  see,  indeed, 
cannot  help  seeing,  and  are  such  as  cannot  possibly  be  counter- 
feits produced  by  an  intention  to  deceive.  And  those  about 
which  you  have  to  take  the  word  of  others,  you  have  heard 


90— w 


306 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


testified  to  by  the  most  truthful  men  and  the  holiest  women  you 
have  ever  known,  and  at  times  when,  if  ever,  the  truth  will  be 
spoken — not  merely  in  times  of  health  and  abounding  temporal 
happiness,  but  when  overwhelmed  with  suffering,  trembling  on 
the  borders  of  the  river  of  death,  when  the  testimony  is  uttered 
by  voice  and  tongue  soon  to  be  silent  in  the  grave. 

Here,  then,  is  a  test  which  every  one  can  apply  for  himself. 
It  requires  no  historical  learning;  it  does  not  depend  on  the 
truthfulness  or  the  accuracy  and  trustworthiness  of  the  reason- 
ing of  others ;  in  large  part  it  depends  solely  upon  our  own  direct 
personal  observation  and  those  principles  of  belief  and  of 
reasoning  which  are  imbedded  in  our  nature,  and  of  which  we 
cannot  divest  ourselves.  Can  any  one  hesitate  to  say  that  the 
result  of  this  test  must  be  that  the  Bible  is  thereby  proved  to 
be  true,  to  be  indeed  the  word  of  God  ?  Can  any  one  refuse  to 
accept  these  conclusions  without  abandoning  and  contradicting 
all  the  principles  by  which  he  is  guided  and  upon  which  he 
depends  with  absolute  confidence  in  all  the  affairs  of  his  life  ? 

But  there  is  still  another  test  which  is  even  more  conclusive, 
not  the  test  of  observation  merely,  but  of  personal  experience. 

A  dweller  in  a  deep,  dark  cave  might  be  persuaded  to  believe 
in  the  existence  somewhere  of  a  great  body  which  pours  a 
continual  flood  of  light  and  heat  upon  the  surface  of  the  earth, 
far  above  him,  by  the  testimony  of  those  who  descended  to  his 
dismal  home  and  told  him  of  what  they  had  seen  and  felt. 
These  visitors  might  convey  to  him  some  notion  of  the  charac- 
ter of  the  sun  by  comparing  its  power  and  its  effects  with  those 
of  the  dimly  burning  lamp  by  which  the  darkness  of  his  cavern 
is  made  visible.  But  however  clear  the  description,  and  how- 
ever firm  the  confidence  of  the  cave-dweller  in  the  truthfulness 
of  his  visitors,  his  belief  could  hardly  be  so  strong  that  it  might 
not  be  shaken :  there  might  arise  in  his  mind  the  thought  that 
perhaps  after  all  his  visitors  had  themselves  been  deceived,  or 
had  been  trying  to  deceive  him,  or  that  he  had  misunderstood 
them,  and  that  all  the  while  they  had  only  been  telling  him  what 
they  wished  might  be.  And  if  some  one  should  tell  him  that  he 
had  been  misled,  and  that  the  sun  had  no  real  existence, 
reminding  him  that  men  do  not  always  speak  the  truth,  and 
that  he  could  not  know  positively  whether  what  he  had  heard 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


307 


was  true  or  not,  how  could  he  fail  to  be  filled  with  doubt?  It 
would  be  hard  indeed  for  him  to  say  that,  notwithstanding  all, 
he  was  unchangeably  convinced  of  the  truth  of  all  that  he  had 
first  heard. 

But  now  let  him  ascend  to  the  surface  for  himself  ;  after 
climbing  ladder  above  ladder  he  at  length  leaps  forth  from  his 
dark  abode,  and  the  clear  shining  sun  in  all  his  glory  at  once 
bathes  him  in  a  sea  of  purest  light  and  of  gladdening  warmth. 
Xow  how  vain  the  attempt  to  make  him  doubt ;  he  has  seen  and 
felt  the  happiness-bringing  rays  of  the  mighty  ruler  of  the  day ; 
and  he  knows  for  himself  that  it  is  and  what  it  is,  and  no  doubt 
can  ever  again  enter  his  mind,  however  deeply  he  may  descend 
towards  his  former  rayless  abode. 

So  it  is  with  one  whose  eyes  have  been  opened  by  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  who  has  by  him  been  turned  from  dark- 
ness to  light ;  with  one  to  whom  God  has  unveiled  the  truth  by 
his  Spirit ;  to  whom  spiritual  discernment  has  been  given.  Such 
a  one  receives  the  word  of  God  when  he  hears  or  reads  the 
messages  of  his  prophets  and  apostles,  not  as  the  word  of  these 
men,  but  as  it  is  in  truth,  the  word  of  God.  Vain  would  all 
efforts  be  to  make  him  doubt:  he  knows  just  as  he  knows  that 
the  sun  shines. 

He  might  be  told  that  his  belief  is  a  mere  fancy  of  a  disor- 
dered mind ;  that  it  is  merely  the  result  of  his  training  from 
childhood  ;  that  he  has  always  heard  these  things,  and  therefore 
imagines  he  knows  them.  And  he  might  not  be  able  to  answer 
these  and  like  assertions,  any  more  than  many  of  us  could 
satisfactorily  answer  the  arguments  of  the  so-called  philoso- 
phers to  prove  that  there  is  no  world  external  to  ourselves;  or. 
that  if  there  is,  we  can  never  be  sure  of  it.  But  his  belief 
would  no  more  be  shaken  in  the  Bible  as  the  word  of  God.  than 
would  ours  in  the  existence  of  each  other,  of  the  earth  on  which 
we  live,  or  of  the  starry  heavens  above  us.  His  belief  resting 
on  this  firm  foundation,  he  can  exclaim  touching  the  Saviour 
it  describes,  "I  know  that  my  Redeemer  liveth,  *  *  *  that  in 
my  flesh  I  shall  see  God ;  whom  I  shall  see  for  myself  and  mine 
eyes  shall  behold,  and  not  another."  "I  know  whom  I  have 
believed,  and  am  persuaded  that  he  is  able  to  keep  that  which 
I  have  committed  unto  him  against  that  day."    May  I  not 


308 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


appeal  to  many  of  you  as  knowing  from  your  own  blessed 
experience  the  truth  of  what  I  have  just  been  saying?  You 
have  tasted  that  the  Lord  is  gracious  in  giving  you  his  Holy 
Spirit,  and  this  has  led  you  to  recognise  and  desire  the  pure 
milk  of  the  word. 

We  have  now  seen  that  the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God  and  that 
our  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  its  infallible  truth  and 
divine  authority  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  word,  in  our  hearts.  We  have 
next  to  see  what  we  should  believe  as  to  the  contents  of  this 
word  and  God's  design  in  giving  it  to  us. 

Even  a  cursory  examination  is  sufficient  to  show  us  that, 
whatever  else  it  may  contain  and  for  whatever  other  purpose  it 
may  be  designed,  it  principally  teaches  what  we  are  to  believe 
concerning  God,  and  what  duty  God  requires  of  us  ;  that  it 
speaks  concerning  all  things  necessary  for  God's  glory,  man's 
salvation,  faith,  and  life.  It  tells  us  of  God,  that  he  is  infinite, 
eternal,  and  unchangeable,  in  his  being,  wisdom,  power,  holi- 
ness, justice,  goodness,  and  truth;  that  he  is  our  Creator  and 
the  Creator  of  all  things ;  that  in  him  we  live  and  move  and 
have  our  being ;  that  he  created  man  in  his  own  image  in  knowl- 
edge, righteousness,  and  holiness ;  that  man  fell  into  an  estate 
of  sin  and  misery;  that  moved  by  his  infinite  love,  he  sent  his 
Son  into  the  world  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  might  haye 
eternal  life ;  that  his  Son,  when  he  came  to  be  our  Saviour, 
though  God  over  all,  blessed  forever,  yet  became  man,  taking 
on  himself  our  nature  by  being  born  of  a  woman,  that  he  might 
obey  the  law  and  suffer  its  penalty  for  us.  It  gives  man  as  his 
rule  of  life  this ;  that  he  is  to  love  the  Lord  his  God  with  all  his 
heart,  with  all  his  soul,  with  all  his  strength,  and  with  all  his 
mind,  and  his  neighbor  as  himself ;  that  he  is  to  do  unto  others 
as  he  would  that  others  should  do  to  him ;  and  that  it  gives  in 
detail  commandments,  precepts,  and  principles,  showing  how 
this  rule  is  to  be  observed — these  things  and  much  more  of  like 
nature  it  tells  us — showing  us  how  we  may  glorify  God  and 
enjoy  him  forever. 

But  while  it  principally  teaches  these  things,  does  it  not  like- 
wise incidentally  teach  us  much  else  of  matters  that  in  various 
ways  would  minister  to  our  well-being?    God  is  infinite  in 


HIS  TEACHINGS 


309 


goodness  and  love.  He  is  the  Father  of  all  men,  and  in  a  very 
special  sense  of  those  who  are  united  to  his  Son  Jesus  Christ., 
and  thus  have  become  one  with  that  well-beloved  Son.  He  is 
infinite  in  knowledge,  too.  Alight  we  not,  then,  expect  him  to 
teach  his  children  all  those  arts  by  which  their  comfort  and 
happiness  on  earth  would  be  increased ;  and  all  those  branches 
of  knowledge  which  give  such  pure  and  elevated  delight  to  the 
truth-loving  soul?  That  is  the  way  in  which  we  act  towards 
our  children ;  we  endeavor  to  train  them  not  only  in  spiritual 
knowledge,  but  we  also  give  them  all  the  knowledge  we  have 
about  everything  which  we  suppose  can  benefit  them  in  any  way 
whatever,  and  do  all  in  our  power  likewise  to  promote  their 
material  welfare.  If  we,  then,  being  evil,  give  as  gifts  to  our 
children  all  the  good  things  we  have,  will  not  God  much  more 
give  all  the  good  things  he  has  as  gifts  to  his  children?  We 
thus  see  that  it  cannot  be  wholly  unreasonable  to  expect  to  find 
that  God's  word  is  a  treasure-house  filled  not  merely  with 
precious  jewels,  but  containing  likewise  vessels  of  wood,  and 
earth,  and  stone,  fitted  for  the  humbler  uses  of  man.  Under 
the  influence  of  this  feeling  and  expectation,  the  lovers  of  the 
Bible  have  often,  very  often,  in  all  ages,  entered  upon  the  study 
of  it.  Xot  content  to  learn  what  it  does  teach,  in  the  only  way 
in  which  this  can  properly  be  done,  namely,  by  studying  it  with 
teachable  minds,  open  to  receive  the  impressions  that  God 
would  make  upon  them,  they  have  come  with  minds  made  up 
as  to  what  it  ought  to  teach,  and.  as  usually  happens  in  such 
cases,  they  have  found  what  they  wished  to  find.  And  so  the 
Bible  has  been  thought  to  be  an  encyclopaedia  of  universal 
knowledge,  a  comprehensive  text-book  of  history,  philosophy, 
and  the  whole  circle  of  the  sciences.  But  the  intelligent  and 
thoughtful  could  not  long  continue  their  reading  and  study  of 
the  sacred  word  without  becoming  convinced  that  they  must  in 
some  respects  at  least  modify  this  opinion.  They  found  that, 
though  we  are  in  the  image  of  God,  yet  in  some  things,  and 
among  them  this  expectation  that  he  would  in  his  word  teach 
us  everything,  God's  thoughts  are  not  our  thoughts,  nor  are 
his  ways  our  ways.  As  to  history,  for  example,  it  was  easy 
long  ago  to  see  that  the  Bible  is  not  a  universal  history  of  all  the 
nations  among  men.    It  does  give  more  or  less  fully  an  account 


310 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


of  the  line  connecting  the  first  Adam  and  the  second  Adam ;  it 
gives  an  outline  of  the  history  of  the  tribes  and  nations  through 
which  this  line  runs,  and  of  the  peoples  with  which  these  are 
connected  so  long  as  the  connexion  exists ;  but  beyond  this  the 
Bible  is  not  history.  It  introduces  any  facts  that  would  consti- 
tute the  material  of  history,  not  for  their  own  sake  or  for  the 
sake  of  pointing  out  the  relations  existing  between  them,  but 
only  as  showing  the  development  of  that  system  of  spiritual, 
moral,  and  religious  truth,  the  centre  of  which,  that  to  which  all 
else  points,  is,  that  the  seed  of  the  woman  bruises  the  serpent's 
head. 

But  the  hypothesis  of  the  encyclopaedic  character  of  the  Bible 
was  too  deeply  rooted  in  the  minds  of  men  to  be  abandoned 
at  once  when  it  was  seen  to  be  false  in  any  one  particular. 
Admitting  that  it  does  not  teach  universal  history,  it  was  still 
held  that  it  teaches  the  general  outlines  of  at  least  some  depart- 
ments of  secular  knowledge — geography,  for  example.  It  was 
maintained  that  it  is  either  expressly  set  down  in  Scripture,  or 
by  good  and  necessary  consequence  may  be  deduced  from 
Scripture,  that  the  earth  is  a  four-cornered  plain,  that  it  is 
immovable,  that  it  has  no  human  inhabitants  beyond  the  tropical 
regions,  and  the  like.  Then,  as  to  astronomy,  it  was  maintained 
that  in  like  manner  the  Scriptures  teach  that  the  sun  is  the 
greatest  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  that  the  moon  is  next  in  size 
and  importance,  and  that  all  the  stars  together  are  far  smaller 
and  relatively  insignificant;  that  all  these  were  brought  into 
existence  some  days  after  the  earth,  and  three  or  four  days 
before  man  was  created,  and  all  solely  for  his  benefit.  By 
slow  degrees  it  has  now  come  to  be  clearly  seen  and  believed 
that  none  of  these  things  are  taught  in  the  Bible,  expressly  or 
otherwise ;  and,  therefore,  that  in  these  respects  also  the  Bible 
is  not  encyclopaedic. 

I  shall  not  pursue  this  point  farther ;  but  I  may  call  your 
attention  in  passing  to  the  fact  that  the  abandonment  of  these 
views,  which  had  been  the  prevailing  and  recognised  ones  for 
centuries,  did  not  in  the  least,  in  a  single  instance,  affect  the 
moral,  spiritual,  and  religious  truths  involved.  The  heavens 
declare  the  glory  of  God  and  the  firmament  showeth  his  handi- 
work to  you  just  as  they  did  hundreds  of  years  ago  to  those  at 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


311 


whose  views  in  some  particulars  you  are  now  disposed  to  smile, 
but  for  which  they  were  ready  to  contend  earnestly  as  part  of 
the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,  and  for  doubting  or 
rejecting  which  they  were  ready  to  excommunicate  their  fel- 
lows, and,  if  they  could,  in  their  zeal  for  God  and  his  truth,  to 
punish  them  with  imprisonment  and  death. 

The  true  doctrine  is  that  all  needed  moral,  spiritual,  and 
religious  truth  is  here  given  us,  but  nothing  more.  And  against 
going  farther  we  may  well  take  heed  to  this  solemn  warning: 
"Unto  this  truth  nothing  at  any  time  is  to  be  added,  whether  by 
new  revelations  of  the  Spirit,  or  traditions  of  men." 

Returning  again  to  our  examination  of  the  Scriptures — as 
we  read,  we  find  much  that  we  can  easily  understand  at  once, 
and  much  that  we  perhaps  cannot  understand  at  all,  even  after 
the  most  diligent  study.  When  we  now  once  more  look  at  the 
parts  which  we  have  found  plain,  we  are  filled  with  joy  by 
seeing  that  they  are  exactly  those  things  which  are  necessary 
to  be  known,  believed,  and  observed,  for  salvation.  And  to 
make  this  discovery  we  do  not  need  great  stores  of  learning ;  we 
do  not  need  cultivated  minds,  carefully  trained  and  of  deep 
penetration ;  we  do  not  need  to  know  the  languages  in  which 
the  words  were  first  written ;  we  do  not  need  even  to  be  able  to 
read  our  own  language — it  is  enough  for  us  to  hear  an  imper- 
fect translation  repeated  by  the  lips  of  another.  So  hearing, 
we  cannot  fail  to  understand  the  answers,  scattered  all  along 
like  points  of  living  light,  the  answers  given  to  the  question, 
What  shall  I  do  to  be  saved?  The  way  of  holiness  is  marked 
out  so  clearly  that  the  wayfaring  men,  though  fools,  shall  not 
err  therein.  In  this  way  shall  the  redeemed  walk;  and  the 
ransomed  of  the  Lord  shall  return,  and  come  to  Zion  with 
songs  of  everlasting  joy  upon  their  heads;  they  shall  obtain  joy 
and  gladness,  and  sorrow  and  sighing  shall  flee  away. 

But  how  are  we  to  gain  an  understanding  of  the  parts  that 
are  not  so  clear? 

The  Bible  is  a  communication  of  God's  will  to  men,  to  be 
understood  by  them,  and  therefore,  it  is  in  important  respects 
to  be  interpreted  according  to  the  ordinary  rules  of  interpreta- 
tion which  prevail  among  men.  One  of  the  surest  guides  we 
can  have  is  our  knowledge  of  the  intention  or  design  of  any 


312 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


writer.  And  we  may  often  discover  this  from  what  is  written 
even  while  still  much  remains  obscure.  I  think  we  shall  all 
agree  that  we  know  with  certainty  the  design,  at  least  the  main 
design,  of  God  in  giving  us  his  word. 

We  say,  therefore,  that  our  interpretations  must  always  be 
confined  within  the  limits  of  the  fairly  ascertained  intention  of 
the  author.  And  that  where  it  is  supposed  that  God  is  teaching 
us  in  his  word  anything  except  moral,  religious,  and  spiritual 
truth,  it  must  be  made  extremely  plainly  to  appear  from  the 
word  itself  that  it  is  his  intention  so  to  do. 

I  now  answer  the  question  asked  a  little  while  ago,  that  the 
only  "infallible  rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  the  Scrip- 
ture itself;  and,  therefore,  when  there  is  a  question  about  the 
true  and  full  sense  of  any  Scripture  (which  is  not  manifold, 
but  one),  it  may  be  searched  and  known  by  other  places  that 
speak  more  clearly."  When  any  meaning  cannot  be  thus  ascer- 
tained, it  cannot  be  ascertained  at  all. 

I  repeat :  We  ascertain  the  limit  of  the  meaning  of  the  com- 
munication by  ascertaining  the  limit  of  the  intention. 

I  ask  you  to  observe  again,  in  connexion  with  the  last  point, 
that  the  recognition  of  the  limited  nature  and  purpose  of  God's 
teachings  has  in  no  case  affected  in  the  slightest  degree  the 
moral,  spiritual,  and  religious  truth  made  known.  I  shall  not 
take  time  to  present  further  illustrations  of  this  fact ;  but  I  ask 
you  to  run  over  in  your  minds  the  changed  interpretations  to 
which  I  have  been  alluding  and  you  will  at  once  perceive  the 
truth  of  what  I  have  said. 

The  next  point  to  which  I  ask  your  attention  is  that  in  some 
places  the  Scriptures  seem  to  speak  so  clearly  that  they  cannot 
possibly  be  misunderstood ;  and  yet  the  plain  and  obvious  mean- 
ing in  such  places  is  not  the  true  meaning.  Hence  we  may  not 
accept  as  certainly  true  all  those  meanings  which  seem  to  be 
plain  and  obvious,  without  further  examination ;  we  must  in  all 
cases  follow  the  rules  already  stated,  of  comparing  Scripture 
with  Scripture.  For  example,  when  all  the  beauty  and  mag- 
nificence of  the  temple  were  pointed  out  to  our  Saviour,  he 
said :  "Destroy  this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up 
again."    What  was  here  the  plain  and  obvious  sense?    Yet  it 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


313 


was  not  the  true  sense  at  all;  it  expressed  no  part  of  the 
Saviour's  intended  meaning. 

As  to  the  last  point  to  which  I  wish  now  to  call  your  atten- 
tion, I  content  myself  with  quoting  these  weighty  words : 

"The  Supreme  Judge,  by  whom  all  controversies  of  religion 
are  to  be  determined  and  all  decrees  of  councils,  opinions  of 
ancient  writers,  doctrines  of  men  and  private  spirits,  are  to  be 
examined,  and  in  whose  sentence  we  are  to  rest,  can  be  no  other 
but  the  Holy  Spirit,  speaking  in  the  Scripture." 

I  have  now  done  what  I  could  to  set  forth  what  I  believe 
and  have  believed  for  more  than  fifty  years  to  be  the  true 
doctrine  respecting  the  Bible,  and  what  I  have  been  publicly 
teaching  as  such  for  more  than  forty  years.  Year  by  year  I 
have  subjected  the  several  parts  of  this  doctrine  to  the  severest 
tests  employed  in  the  most  rigorous  scientific  investigations, 
and  they  have  triumphantly  stood  these  tests.  Year  by  year 
they  have  been  growing  more  and  more  clear  to  me,  and  more 
and  more  precious.  As  you  have  seen,  they  all  tend  toward  the 
one  point — the  setting  forth  of  the  Bible  as  the  very  word  of 
God,  and  the  interpretation  of  that  word  by  the  word  itself, 
under  the  guidance  and  enlightening  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
so  that  we  may  reach  the  pure,  undistorted  meaning  of  that 
revelation  which  makes  wise  unto  salvation. 

Here,  then,  is  what  again  I  offer  you  as  your  guide  through 
life,  through  the  river  of  death,  into  the  glorious  life  beyond. 
Receive  and  believe  it  as  the  very  word  of  truth  :  accept  its 
invitations;  obey  its  commands;  love  and  trust  in  the  Saviour 
it  sets  forth,  and  you  shall  without  fail,  each  moment  in  this 
life,  enjoy  the  loving  care  of  the  Almighty  Ruler  of  the  Uni- 
verse ;  and  after  this  life  you  shall  spend  a  blessed  eternity  in 
the  presence  of  the  Redeemer. 

And  now  I  commend  you  to  God  and  to  the  word  of  his 
grace,  which  is  able  to  build  you  up,  and  to  give  you  an  inheri- 
tance among  all  them  which  are  sanctified. 


314 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Presbyterial  Sermon. 


Delivered  Before  Augusta  Presbytery  During  the  War 
Between  the  States. 


Josh.  13:1  (latter  clause).  There  remaineth  yet  very  much  land  to 
be  possessed. 

The  servant  of  the  Lord  to  whom  these  words  were 
addressed  was  now  near  the  close  of  his  career.  Eminently 
successful  that  career  had  been.  Early  distinguished  by  his 
courage  in  the  discharge  of  the  arduous  duty  assigned  him  by 
the  leader  of  the  children  of  Israel,  and  by  the  confidence  with 
which  he  trusted  in  the  promises  of  God,  in  the  face  of  the 
greatest  danger,  Joshua  had  been  chosen  to  succeed  Moses  in 
his  high  office,  and  had  the  great  honor  of  introducing  the 
Israelites  into  the  land  of  promise,  whose  excellences  he  had 
beheld  and  described  to  them  near  forty  years  before  in  such 
animating,  but  unavailing  words.  For  several  years  now  he 
had  been  conquering  one  tribe  after  another,  until  thirty-one 
kings  had  been  smitten,  and  their  territories  divided  among  the 
tribes  of  Israel.  Now  that  Joshua  was  old  and  stricken  in 
years,  he  had  still  much  work  to  do;  for  though  the  actual 
possession  of  the  rest  of  the  land  would  not  be  secured  under 
his  leadership,  yet  he  must  go  forward  with  the  allotment  of 
that  which  remained  unconquered,  trusting  in  the  Lord's 
promise,  which  he  had  so  often  before  found  sure,  that  he  in 
due  time  would  overcome  every  remaining  foe  before  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel. 

The  entire  history  of  the  Israelites  from  the  time  they  were 
escaping  from  bondage  in  Egypt,  through  all  the  varying  scenes 
of  their  journey  through  the  desert,  to  their  entrance  into  the 
promised  Canaan  and  their  full  possession  of  it,  may  be 
regarded  as  typifying  the  history  of  the  child  of  God,  escaping 
from  the  bondage  of  sin,  passing  through  the  wilderness  of  this 
world,  and  finally,  having  triumphed  over  all  enemies  without 
and  within,  gaining  undisturbed  possession  of  the  heavenly 
Canaan.  But  we  may  also  regard  it  as  a  type  of  the  Church 
on  earth  in  its  organised  form,  escaping  from  bondage  to  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


315 


power  of  its  enemy,  and  going  forth  to  do  battle  in  the  name  of 
its  Master  against  every  opposing  foe  until  the  whole  earth,  all 
the  kingdoms  of  this  world  shall  have  become  the  kingdoms  of 
the  Lord.  It  is  the  analogy  to  the  circumstances  in  which  we 
are  placed  as  a  presbytery,  suggested  by  regarding  the  history 
from  this  point  of  view,  that  has  led  me  to  select  the  passage  I 
have  as  the  basis  of  our  meditations  at  this  time. 

It  is  not  the  great  field — the  world — that  I  ask  you  to  con- 
sider, that  portion  of  our  work  from  which  we  are  at  present 
shut  out  in  great  part,  carrying  the  light  into  distant  lands, 
where  prevails  the  darkness  of  paganism  and  Mahometanism 
and  popery.  Nor  yet  is  it  the  field  on  our  frontiers,  in  the 
sparsely  settled  regions  of  the  wrest,  to  which  we  are  bound  by 
still  stronger  obligations  to  send  part  of  our  forces,  that  we 
may  gain  a  firm  foot-hold  there.  Nor  yet  is  it  that  field  where 
several  of  our  brethren  have  been  laboring,  that  field  where  the 
great  enemy  of  God  is  striving  so  eagerly  to  overcome  our 
kinsmen  who  are  defending  our  borders  from  the  inroads  of 
our  country's  foe.  It  is  not  to  any  or  all  of  these  parts  of  the 
land  yet  to  be  possessed  that  I  ask  you  to  direct  your  attention 
now,  but  to  that  which  lies  at  our  very  doors,  that  which  is 
within  our  bounds  as  a  Presbytery,  and  which  therefore  is 
especially  committed  to  our  care,  and  for  which  it  is  our 
especial  province  to  provide,  when  assembled  together  as  we 
now  are.  Within  these  limits,  narrow  as  they  are,  compared 
with  the  whole  world,  and  long  as  the  struggle  has  been  going 
on  for  their  possession,  there  still  remains  much  land  to  be  pos- 
sessed. This  is  true  even  of  the  narrower  limits  of  each  one 
of  our  congregations.  There  is  not  one  of  our  congregations 
within  whose  bounds  some  persons  may  not  be  found  who 
seldom  or  never  hear  either  from  the  pulpit  or  from  the  printed 
word  of  God  that  they  are  in  bondage  to  sin  and  that  there  is  a 
way  of  escape.  Is  it  going  too  far  to  say  that  there  is  not  one 
congregation  where  there  are  not  to  be  found  those  who  might 
be  brought  to  hear  the  truth  habitually,  provided  those  to  whom 
the  oversight  of  the  congregation  has  been  committed  by  the 
Head  of  the  Church,  and  all  its  spiritual  private  members  too, 
diligently  and  zealously  discharged  their  duties? 


316 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


When  we  look  beyond  the  immediate  limits  of  our  congre- 
gations, the  destitution  rapidly  increases.  In  some  cases  efforts 
are  being  made  to  cultivate  the  field  in  the  immediate  neighbor- 
hood ;  but  a  limit  is  soon  reached  beyond  which  the  face  of  a 
minister  or  elder  of  our  Church,  engaged  in  the  discharge  of  his 
spiritual  duties,  is  never  seen.  To  what  extent  this  is  true  we 
may  learn  from  a  consideration  of  the  size  of  our  Presbytery 
and  the  knowledge  we  have  of  our  own  habits.  The  Presby- 
tery embraces  about  thirty  counties  with  a  population  of  two 
hundred  and  seventy-five  or  three  hundred  thousand  souls. 
Within  these  counties  are  thirty-two  or  three  churches,  and 
twenty  ministers  more  or  less  actively  employed.  How  much, 
then,  remains  waste,  as  far  as  the  efforts  of  Presbyterians  are 
concerned.  It  is  true  that  all  this  territory  does  not  remain 
waste  as  far  as  Christian  influence  is  concerned.  The  labors  of 
our  sister  Churches  we  fully  appreciate,  and  we  give  God  thanks 
for  what  he  has  accomplished  through  their  instrumentality. 
But  the  very  fact  that  we  are  Presbyterians  is  involved,  that 
we  believe  Presbyterianism  to  be  the  most  scriptural  form  of 
Christianity,  and  therefore  we  are  bound  to  propagate  it  to  the 
utmost  of  our  ability.  If  we  are  sincere  in  our  profession  of 
Presbyterianism,  then  although  we  do  well  when  propagating 
those  portions  of  the  truth  which  we  hold  in  common  with  our 
fellow-Christians  of  other  names,  and  which  we  acknowledge 
are  more  important  than  the  portions  which  remain,  we  do 
better,  we  do  our  whole  duty — and  if  we  do  less,  we  fail  to  do 
our  whole  duty — when  propagating  the  whole  truth  as  we 
profess  to  receive  it.  Hence,  in  speaking  of  waste  places,  and 
places  which  we  are  yet  to  possess,  I  mean  waste  as  to  the 
prevalence  of  our  system  of  doctrine  and  polity ;  and  that, 
without  intending  any  disparagement  to  our  sister  denomina- 
tions, except  as  far  as  our  independent  and  separate  existence 
may  be  so  construed.  But  even  were  we  to  regard  the  field 
otherwise,  and  to  confine  our  attention  to  regions  entirely  desti- 
tute of  active  Christian  influence,  we  would  still  find  very  much 
to  fix  our  gaze. 

But  to  return  to  the  consideration  of  the  relative  extent  of 
our  Church.  Among  the  whole  population  of  three  hundred 
thousand  we  have  about  two  thousand  communing  members,  or 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


317 


about  one  in  one  hundred  and  fifty.  Or  estimating  that  for 
each  communing  member  there  are  two  or  three  church-mem- 
bers who  have  not  yet  come  to  the  years  of  discretion,  or  at 
least,  two  or  three  others  who  form  part  of  the  congregation, 
then  the  proportion  of  the  population  under  our  immediate 
influence  and  care  is  one-fortieth  or  one-fiftieth  of  the  whole. 
Here,  then,  is  work  enough  to  do  among  the  thirty-nine- 
fortieths  that  remain. 

Is  there  any  reason  for  discouragement  in  this  fact,  that  we 
are  such  a  little  handful?  There  might  be,  if  we  expected  to 
conquer  by  our  own  strength  or  by  our  mere  numbers.  How- 
ever, even  when  we  regard  the  mere  matter  of  numbers,  there 
is  nothing  to  discourage  us,  if  we  compare  the  growth  of  our 
Church  with  the  growth  of  our  population  during  the  last 
twenty  years.  The  population  within  our  limits  from  the  year 
1840  to  1850  increased  fourteen  in  the  hundred;  our  Church 
membership  increased  in  the  same  time  forty-four  in  the  hun- 
dred, or  from  ten  hundred  and  ten  to  fourteen  hundred  and 
sixty;  while  from  1850  to  1860  the  Church  increased  twenty  in 
the  hundred ;  or  the  whole  increase  in  twenty  years  of  all  the 
churches  within  our  bounds  at  the  first  date,  from  1840  to  1860, 
was  from  ten  hundred  and  ten  to  seventeen  hundred  and  sixty, 
or  seventy-five  in  the  hundred,  while  the  whole  population  did 
not  increase  more  than  twenty-five  in  the  hundred.  I  mention 
these  facts  to  prevent  our  yielding  belief  to  the  often  repeated 
lamentation  that  our  Church  is  losing  ground  within  our  limits, 
which  has  sometimes  had  the  effect  of  discouraging  efforts  that 
were  about  to  be  made  to  disseminate  the  truth,  or  of  leading 
1  some  to  suppose  that  new,  unPresbyterian  measures  should  be 
adopted  instead  of  a  careful  search  for  the  old  paths  and  return 
to  them.  If  in  comparison  with  our  sister  denominations  we 
are  numerically  less  important,  again  let  us  rejoice  that  while 
we  have  gained  many  trophies  from  the  world,  other  branches 
of  the  Church  have  made  such  successful  inroads  upon  the 
common  enemy,  that  our  advance  is  less  conspicuous.  It  would 
be  foreign  to  my  present  purpose  to  show  now,  as  might  be 
done,  that  much  of  the  relative  change  to  which  allusion  has 
been  made  is  owing  to  the  fact  that  our  sister  Churches  have 
been  inclined  by  our  example  to  adopt  many  measures  which 


318 


DR.  JAMSS  WOODROW. 


have  contributed  greatly  to  enhance  their  own  good  influence. 

But  spiritual  power  is  not  to  be  estimated  by  mere  numbers. 
It  is  the  result  of  strength  of  faith,  of  conformity  to  our 
Saviour,  the  possession  of  his  Spirit,  and  the  imitation  of  his 
example.  And  our  highest  encouragement  in  the  work  before 
us  is  that  it  is  God's  work,  in  which  he  honors  us  by  making  us 
his  co-laborers,  but  the  success  of  which  he  will  insure  for  his 
own  glory.  Our  only  concern  is  that  we  employ  the  means 
which  he  has  appointed  with  the  zeal  and  faith  which  he  has 
enjoined.  If  we  do  thus,  the  result  we  may  leave,  with  calm 
confidence  as  to  our  most  perfect  success,  in  his  hands.  We 
may  take  as  our  own  the  reiterated  charge  and  promise  given 
to  Joshua  as  he  was  entering  upon  his  work.  (Josh.  1 :6  et 
seq.)  "Be  strong  and  of  a  good  courage;  for  unto  this  people 
shalt  thou  divide  for  an  inheritance  the  land  which  I  sware  unto 
their  fathers  to  give  them.  Only  be  thou  strong  and  very 
courageous,  that  thou  mayest  observe  to  do  according  to  all  the 
laws  which  Moses  my  servant  commanded  thee ;  turn  not  from 
it  to  the  right  hand  or  to  the  left,  that  thou  mayest  prosper 
whithersoever  thou  goest.  This  book  of  the  law  shall  not  depart 
out  of  thy  mouth,  but  thou  shalt  meditate  therein  day  and  night, 
that  thou  mayest  observe  to  do  according  to  all  that  is  written 
therein ;  for  then  thou  shalt  make  thy  way  prosperous,  and  then 
thou  shalt  have  good  success.  Have  not  I  commanded  thee? 
Be  strong  and  of  a  good  courage ;  be  not  afraid,  neither  be  thou 
dismayed,  for  the  Lord  thy  God  is  with  thee  whithersoever 
thou  goest/'  Here  we  have  full  instructions  as  to  the  means 
we  are  to  employ  in  our  conquests,  and  encouragement  enough, 
surely,  to  banish  all  faint-heartedness  forever,  whatever  people 
that  be  strong,  or  walled  cities,  or  giants,  sons  of  Anak,  there 
may  be  to  overcome.  Only  let  us  be  strong  in  our  confidence 
in  the  promises  of  God,  and  careful  to  employ  means  of  his 
devising,  as  we  may  learn  them  from  his  own  law. 

Are  we  employing,  then,  the  instrumentalities  appointed  in 
the  book  of  the  law?  As  regards  our  theoretical  equipment, 
which  we  ought  to  be,  and  I  trust  are,  struggling  to  obtain, 
we  have  good  reason  to  think  that  we  are. 

The  first  and  great  instrumentality  is  the  preaching  of  the 
word  of  God.    To  secure  efficiency  in  this,  we  profess  to 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


319 


observe  every  precaution  enjoined  in  the  book  of  the  law.  We 
pray  to  the  Lord  of  the  harvest  that  he  would  send  us  laborers ; 
and  those  who  present  themselves  under  the  belief  that  they 
are  so  sent,  we  test  by  all  the  rules  which  he  has  given.  We 
lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man,  accepting  "not  a  novice,  lest 
being  lifted  up  with  pride,  he  fall  into  the  condemnation  of 
the  devil."  We  require  purity  and  blamelessness  of  char- 
acter and  real  piety  in  the  candidate  long  before  he  shall 
enter  upon  the  work.  Recognising  the  absurdity  of  expect- 
ing any  one  to  teach  another,  when  untaught  himself,  we 
provide  for  the  general  mental  culture  of  those  who  would 
preach,  and  for  their  special  instruction  for  years  in  the  truths 
which  they  desire  to  proclaim.  If  these  preparations  are  made 
and  we  think  we  have  proofs  of  the  validity  of  the  Lord's 
sending,  we  then  admit  to  public  trial ;  but  not  until  the  people 
of  a  particular  church  unite  their  call  with  ours,  do  we,  acting 
under  the  authority  of  the  Lord  of  the  harvest,  send  into  the 
field  the  offered  laborer. 

For  the  different  kinds  of  service  we  provide  different  classes 
of  laborers.  For  the  careful  cultivation  of  churches  already 
planted  we  provide  those  who  shall  be  settled  teachers  and 
pastors ;  for  bringing  under  cultivation  the  waste  places,  for 
planting  churches  in  territory  not  yet  occupied,  we  have  evan- 
gelists to  whom  this  duty  is  especially  confided.  Thus  we  seek 
those  to  preach  the  gospel  who  hold  fast  the  faithful  word  as 
they  have  been  taught,  that  they  may  be  able  by  sound  doctrine 
both  to  exhort  and  to  convince  the  gainsayers,  workmen  need- 
ing not  to  be  ashamed,  rightly  dividing  the  word  of  truth. 

To  participate  with  these  in  the  oversight  of  the  flock  of 
Christ,  in  visiting  the  people  from  house  to  house,  in  the  exer- 
cise of  all  needful  discipline,  in  opening  and  shutting  the  doors 
of  the  Church  on  earth,  and  in  doing  whatever  can  be  done 
to  promote  the  welfare  of  the  church,  except  public  teaching, 
to  perform  all  these  important  duties,  we  have  provided  that 
every  congregation  shall  choose  from  its  members  ruling  elders, 
men  of  faith  and  zeal ;  believing  that,  if  his  guidance  be  sought, 
the  Holy  Ghost  will  speak  through  the  voice  of  the  church, 
and  that  those  whom  the  congregation  names  will  indeed  be 
overseers  of  the  flock  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 


320 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Even  yet  the  external  equipment  is  not  complete ;  for  the 
care  of  the  poor,  whom  Christ  has  said  we  have  always  with 
us,  and  the  care  of  the  temporal  affairs  of  the  church,  require 
a  separate  class  of  officers.  And  for  the  appointment  of 
deacons,  also,  to  whom  these  duties  are  assigned  we  have  made 
provision,  following  the  example  set  us  by  the  apostles  in  the 
organisation  of  the  Church. 

Is  it  true,  in  point  of  fact,  that  the  equipment  thus  described 
is  not  ours,  or  is  ours  only  in  part?  If  so,  then  it  is  because 
our  practice  does  not  correspond  with  our  professions,  and  it 
is  matter  for  repentance  before  God.  Confessing  our  short- 
comings wherever  we  have  failed,  let  us  seek  forgiveness  from 
him,  and  strive  in  the  future  to  serve  him  in  the  way  which 
we  have  solemnly  professed  to  regard  as  that  which  he  has 
chosen  and  ordained  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the 
work  of  the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ. 

Is  the  reason  that  we  have  not  attended  to  our  duties  more 
faithfully  the  want  of  fidelity  on  the  part  of  the  people  of  our 
congregations  to  their  solemn  promises  ?  Do  they  neglect  their 
promise  to  yield  you  all  that  honor,  encouragement,  and  obedi- 
ence in  the  Lord,  to  which  your  office,  according  to  the  word 
of  God  and  the  constitution  of  the  Church  entitles  you?  Do 
they  forget  their  promises  to  receive  the  word  of  truth  from 
your  mouth  with  meekness  and  love,  to  submit  to  you  in  the 
due  exercise  of  discipline,  and  to  assist  your  endeavors  for 
their  instruction  and  spiritual  edification?  And  are  their 
engagements  to  free  you  from  worldly  cares  and  avocations 
sometimes  a  bitter  mockery,  in  view  of  the  wants  of  yourselves 
and  those  whom  God  has  made  dependent  on  you?  All  this 
may  be  true  in  whole  or  in  part;  but  let  us  take  heed,  my 
brethren,  that  their  sin,  too,  be  not  at  our  door.  Have  we 
proclaimed  to  them  their  duties  in  these  matters?  Have  we 
striven  by  our  fidelity  to  deserve  the  honor  promised?  Have 
we  so  given  ourselves  wholly  to  these  things  as  to  make  the 
desirableness  of  our  being  free  from  care  appear?  Have  we 
not  shrunk  from  declaring  the  whole  truth,  where  we  ourselves 
and  those  connected  with  us  are  concerned,  from  a  false  sense 
of  delicacy?    Let  us  do  our  duty  to  those  whom  God  has 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


321 


appointed  us  to  teach  and  to  rule,  and  most  of  these  com- 
plaints, we  may  rest  assured,  will  soon  come  to  an  end. 

Having  now  seen  what  is  needful  to  our  complete  equipment, 
let  us  inquire  how  we  may  best  enter  upon  the  great  work 
which  is  still  before  us,  what  we  can  do  that  we  are  not  already 
doing,  whether  we  are  not  suffering  part  of  our  equipment  to 
lie  idle.  The  best  armor  is  of  no  avail,  if  we  do  not  use  it. 
We  may  inquire  further,  now  that  we  see  the  Church  itself 
provided  with  all  the  agencies  we  need,  whether  it  will  be  well 
for  us  to  employ  others  or  to  confine  ourselves  to  the  diligent 
use  of  those  which  are  of  divine  appointment.  Do  we  not 
answer  with  one  accord  that  we  will  adopt  no  new  measures? 
but  that  as  for  us,  we  will  stand  in  the  ways,  and  see,  and  ask 
for  the  old  paths,  where  is  the  good  way,  and  with  God's  help 
we  will  walk  therein. 

What,  then,  is  the  old  path  of  which  our  fathers  have  told 
us,  and  which  was  pursued  by  the  early  preachers  of  the  gospel, 
whereby  our  settled  ministers  can  affect  the  field  which  we 
have  particularly  in  view  ?  You  may  ordinarily  be  so  employed 
on  Sabbath  that  it  is  not  possible  for  you  to  do  much,  if  any- 
thing, beyond  the  limits  of  your  own  congregation  on  that  day. 
But  our  fathers  have  told  us  that  by  a  ride  of  five  or  ten  miles 
from  their  homes  they  could  always  find  little  groups  who 
would  assemble  eagerly  to  listen  to  divine  truth,  at  the  school- 
room or  court-house  or  in  the  sitting-room  of  the  farm  house. 
They  have  told  us  that  once  a  week  they  could  meet  these  little 
assemblies  and  break  to  them  the  bread  of  life  without  in  any 
way  interfering  with  their  duties  to  the  congregations  to  which 
they  ministered  on  the  Sabbath.  Why  cannot  we  do  the  same 
thing?  Do  your  pastoral  duties  prevent?  Surely,  then,  your 
fellow-pastors,  the  ruling  elders,  cannot  be  doing  their  pastoral 
work.  My  brethren  of  the  eldership,  see  you  to  it  that  your 
minister  is  not  kept  out  of  this  field  by  your  neglect  of  your 
duty.  Do  you  visit  the  sick,  go  from  house  to  house,  exer- 
cising that  watchful  care  over  your  people,  old  and  young, 
which  you  have  been  called  to  exercise,  and  then  your  fellow- 
presbyter  who  has  been  called  to  labor  in  word  and  doctrine 
will  have  no  reason  of  this  kind  to  prevent  his  extending  his 
influence.    As  to  its  interfering  with  necessary  study,  this  need 


21— w 


322 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


seldom,  if  ever,  be  the  case.  Would  you  have  but  little  hand- 
fuls  to  preach  to?  But  consider  the  gain,  should  your  efforts 
in  this  way  result  in  the  conversion  of  a  single  soul. 

By  having  a  series  of  outposts  thus  around  every  established 
congregation  within  our  bounds,  what  inroads  would  we  make 
in  a  short  time !  Will  you  not  try  it  ?  And  if  you  determine, 
do  you  doubt  that  a  rich  blessing  will  attend  such  an  effort, 
zealously  put  forth  and  persevered  in,  wherever  the  least  open- 
ing can  be  found  ? 

Should  there  be  added  at  these  outposts  some  provision  for 
assembling  and  teaching  the  youth  of  the  neighborhood  every 
Sabbath,  then  we  might  hope  for  all  the  more.  Now  to  whom 
shall  the  founding  of  such  schools  be  committed?  Shall  we 
call  in  the  aid  of  a  union  outside  of  the  Church,  finding  the 
Church  here  insufficient  ?  No,  no ;  let  us  still  employ  the  instru- 
ments we  have.  Is  there  a  living,  active  church  within  our 
bounds  that  cannot  furnish  four  or  five  teachers  from  among 
its  elders  or  deacons  or  private  members,  who  should  be  able 
after  a  little  experience  to  conduct  successfully  a  Sabbath- 
school?  It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  a  great  multitude  of 
teachers  is  necessary.  Several  may  be  necessary  for  the 
highest  usefulness  of  a  large  school;  but  if  more  help  cannot 
be  obtained,  let  not  a  possible  opening  for  a  school  be  neglected 
because  the  single  teacher  must  do  all  the  work  unaided.  Shall 
we  not  increase  our  efforts  in  this  direction  also  ?  watching  over 
these  little  missions  in  our  sessional  presbyteries  and  as  care- 
fully supplying  vacancies  in  them  as  we  should  do,  and  at  such 
a  meeting  as  we  are  now  holding,  the  vacancies  in  our  churches. 
In  urging  that  we  do  the  work  ourselves,  I  would  not  disparage 
the  labors  of  the  voluntary  societies  to  which  this  work  has 
been  so  largely  committed ;  they  have  effected  great  good.  But 
here  is  the  better  way,  a  way  by  which  the  work  committed 
to  the  Church  will  be  done  by  the  Church. 

Should  there  be  added  to  this  case  of  the  youth,  the  supply- 
ing of  the  whole  region  with  the  word  of  God  and  with 
religious  reading  of  a  suitable  character,  still  by  those  who  act 
under  the  direction  of  the  sessional  presbytery,  then  it  would 
seem  that  we  might  confidently  look  for  the  blessing  of  God 
on  the  seed  thus  sown  and  watered.    And  we  would  see  much 


HIS  TEACHINGS 


323 


of  the  reproach  taken  away,  whether  it  has  been  true  or  false, 
that  as  a  Church  we  have  lost  that  part  of  the  spirit  of  our 
Master  which  led  him  to  go  himself  and  to  enjoin  it  upon  his 
disciples  to  go  into  the  highways  and  the  hedges,  and  compel 
all  to  come  in  to  enjoy  the  feast  of  love  which  he  has  prepared. 

Still  more  would  our  conduct  be  reflecting  the  glory  of  the 
gospel  were  we  in  all  these  efforts  to  avoid  overlooking  the 
spiritual  wants  of  that  large  class  of  our  population,  our  ser- 
vants, of  whom  so  considerable  a  number  are  to  be  found  in 
the  localities  which  we  are  now  considering,  on  the  outskirts 
of  our  congregations  and  yet  within  convenient  reach.  One  of 
the  most  conspicuous  marks  of  the  Saviour's  actual  presence 
in  the  world  was  that  to  the  poor  the  gospel  was  preached. 
Let  us  strive  to  have  this  mark  of  the  Saviour's  presence 
amongst  us,  that  to  the  poor,  whether  bond  or  free,  black  or 
white,  the  gospel  is  preached  by  us. 

But  after  all  that  is  possible  in  this  way  has  been  done,  there 
still  remains  much  of  our  territory  which  cannot  be  habitually 
reached  by  those  of  our  ministers  who  are  appointed  to  the 
constant  care  of  particular  congregations  or  by  their  co-pastors 
of  the  sessional  presbytery.  What  shall  be  done  for  such 
portions  of  our  field?  Shall  they  be  permitted  to  lie  waste 
without  so  much  as  a  single  effort  to  add  them  to  the  realm 
of  our  Sovereign?  Surely  not.  This  were  most  criminal 
neglect  of  the  plainest  duty.  Do  we  not  expect  our  churches 
to  cover  every  part  of  our  land?  And  if  so,  do  we  expect 
them  to  plant  themselves?  To  whom  shall  we  look  but  to 
ourselves  as  the  instruments  in  this  part  of  the  work?  And 
while  every  reward  is  offered  to  fidelity  here,  if  we  neglect 
it,  have  we  not  reason  to  fear  the  fate  of  that  wicked  and  sloth- 
ful servant  who  hid  his  Lord's  talent  in  the  earth ;  or  the  curse 
of  Meroz,  if  we  go  not  to  the  help  of  the  Lord,  the  help  of 
the  Lord  against  the  mighty?  Let  us  rather  by  diligence  in 
this  part  of  our  commission  also,  see  the  glory  of  our  Lord, 
that  in  due  time  we  may  enter  into  his  joy. 

Let  us  inquire,  then,  diligently,  when  wre  enter  upon  our 
deliberations,  how  we  may  best  supply  the  alarming  destitu- 
tions now  before  our  minds. 


324 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


There  was  one  custom  of  our  fathers  by  which  they  extended 
their  influence  as  far  as  they  could,  which  a  general  change 
in  habits,  and  especially  in  the  mode  of  travelling,  has  rendered 
less  practicable  to  us.  They  were  accustomed  before  every 
journey  to  a  meeting  of  presbytery  or  synod,  and  indeed  before 
every  journey  for  whatever  purpose,  to  send  messages  to  each 
of  the  points  where  they  expected  to  rest  overnight,  inviting  the 
people  of  the  neighborhood  to  meet  them  to  hear  the  word 
of  God.  And  tired  though  they  might  be  with  the  day's  ride, 
they  would  not  rest  until  they  had  spoken  of  Jesus  and  him 
crucified  to  the  people,  many  or  few,  who  had  assembled  to 
hear  them.  In  this  way  was  much  precious  seed  sown.  And 
although  we  all  may  not  have  the  opportunity  of  doing  exactly 
as  they  did,  yet  many  of  us  are  still  often  placed  in  exactly 
the  same  circumstances ;  and  all  of  us,  by  suffering  no  similar 
occasion  to  pass  unimproved,  would  have  many  an  opportunity 
of  adding  a  star  to  our  crowns  of  rejoicing.  But  whatever 
we  may  do  in  this  way,  we  cannot  make  those  systematic 
advances  which  our  duty  demands.  Our  efforts  must  be  more 
regular,  having  distinctly  in  view  the  acquisition  and  firm  hold- 
ing of  the  entire  region.  This  of  course  is  not  to  be  effected 
by  individual  effort.  It  must  be  under  the  direction  of  the 
presbytery,  and  indeed  by  the  presbytery  itself  acting  through 
its  immediate  agents. 

In  the  first  place,  in  the  region  that  we  have  to  regard  here, 
as  beyond  the  reach  of  our  actual  influence,  we  have  to  speak 
of  some  of  our  churches.  Are  there  not  churches  in  this  Pres- 
bytery, where,  since  our  last  meeting  or  even  a  longer  time, 
there  has  not  been  a  single  sermon  preached  or  a  single  meeting 
of  the  members  of  the  church  for  any  purpose?  Shall  we  sepa- 
rate now  without  making  provision  for  breaking  the  bread  of 
life,  for  the  preaching  of  the  word  and  the  administering  of 
the  sealing  ordinances,  at  least  in  every  church  under  our  care  ? 
Our  custom  has  been  to  send  supplies  to  such  churches  as  ask 
us  formally  to  do  so;  but  is  this  all  we  owe  them?  We  speak 
of  them  as  being  under  our  care :  but  what  care  is  that  which 
waits  until  its  exercise  is  solicited  in  formal  terms  before  it 
is  extended?  How  will  it  reach  those  which  especially  need 
it,  those  which  are  weak  and  ready  to  perish,  those  which  are 


HIS  TEACHINGS, 


325 


sickly  and  ready  to  die  ?  Let  this  no  longer  be  our  custom  ;  let 
us  institute  close  examination  into  the  condition  of  every  one 
of  our  churches  ;  let  us  go  to  them,  after  learning  accurately 
their  condition,  let  us  from  time  to  time  do  for  them  whatever 
they  need  that  it  is  our  province  to  do,  as  we  shall  answer  to 
the  Head  of  the  Church,  whose  ministers  we  are. 

In  the  next  place,  let  us  hasten  to  send  forth  at  least  one 
of  our  number,  who  shall  go  up  and  down  through  our  entire 
territory  outside  of  all  of  our  churches  and  the  regions  near 
them  which  the  churches  ought  to  be  cultivating,  and  who  shall 
spend  his  whole  time  in  preaching  the  gospel,  administering 
the  sealing  ordinances,  and  organising  churches,  in  accordance 
with  the  vows  which  some  of  us  have  taken,  but  upon  which 
duty  the  presbytery  is  this  day  sending  not  one.  Do  we  expect 
to  bring  our  whole  territory  under  our  immediate  influence? 
How  can  we  profess  this,  when  we  are  doing  not  one  thing 
that  looks  towards  the  accomplishment  of  it?  Is  it  objected 
that  in  the  present  state  of  our  country,  we  can  undertake 
nothing?  That  all  our  energies  must  be  bent  to  the  deliver- 
ance of  our  land  from  the  power  of  its  foes,  and  to  the  care 
of  the  widows  and  orphans  of  those  who  have  died  in  their 
country's  service?  God  forbid  that  we  should  take  one  step 
that  would  lead  us  away  from  the  full  discharge  of  all  our 
duties  in  this  direction.  But  while  we  are  eagerly  and  cheer- 
fully rendering  to  Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar's,  let  us 
not  fail  to  render  to  God  the  things  that  are  God's.  While 
we  are  providing  for  the  sustenance  and  comfort  of  our  neigh- 
bors and  friends,  shall  our  love  to  them  be  content  with  this? 
Shall  we  neglect  to  provide  for  the  wants  of  their  souls?  It 
may  be  said  that  we  must  first  have  a  country  and  countrymen 
before  we  do  more.  Whether  this  is  sufficient  to  satisfy  the 
consciences  and  the  desire  to  glorify  God,  of  those  who.  while 
they  yield  to  none  in  devotion  to  their  country,  have  professed 
to  consecrate  themselves  soul  and  body  to  the  service  of  the 
heavenly  King,  judge  ye.  Is  it  possible  that  we  think  we 
cannot  procure  the  means  of  supporting  such  an  evangelist? 
This  cannot  be.  Or  if  such  a  thought  has  obtained  lodgment 
in  our  minds  for  an  instant,  far  be  it  from  us  to  retain  it;  let 
us  dismiss  it  at  once.    There  are  many  calls  upon  our  means, 


326 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


it  is  true,  and  to  these  we  ought  freely  to  respond  and  to  be 
always  seeking  by  self-denial  how  we  may  give  more  and  more 
to  the  peculiar  calls  now  made.  But  after  all  this,  does  any 
one  imagine  that  we  cannot  go  beyond  and  do  what  is  now 
proposed?  If  so,  he  must  have  forgotten  that  a  consecration 
of  ourselves  to  our  Redeemer  surely  involves  a  consecration 
of  our  property  also  to  his  service ;  and  that  whatever  we  have 
we  hold  as  his  stewards,  and  that  we  are  bound  to  use  it  all 
in  promoting  his  kingdom,  which  we  should  feel  it  our  highest 
and  most  delightful  privilege  to  do,  were  there  no  obligation. 
If  while  we  admit  this,  we  base  our  fears  upon  the  failure 
to  recognise  it  practically  by  our  fellow-church  members,  let 
us  immediately  address  ourselves  to  teaching  them  their  duty 
and  their  privilege  in  this  respect,  as  God  has  taught  it  to  us 
in  his  word.  Let  us  seek  to  lead  them  to  repent  and  to  bring 
forth  fruit  meet  for  repentance.  If  our  Church  be  alive,  we 
can  never  lack  pecuniary  means  for  this  or  any  other  under- 
taking required  by  the  condition  of  our  Lord's  kingdom  among 
us.  No,  if  we  decline  this,  let  it  be  on  the  grounds  which 
seem  to  be  the  only  ones  left:  either  that  we  do  not  think 
it  so  important  to  send  forth  such  a  laborer  into  the  Lord's 
harvest  as  it  is  to  save  our  money,  to  invest  it  in  bonds,  to  use 
it  in  trading, — to  do  with  it  these  or  other  lawful  things,  but 
which  look  merely  to  bodily,  material  interests;  or  that  we 
have  no  suitable  laborer  to  send.  And  in  this  case,  let  us  cry 
mightily  unto  God  to  give  us  those  whom  he  would  have  us 
send. 

Such,  my  brethren,  is  the  condition,  in  part,  of  the  land  we 
claim ;  and  such  are  the  means,  in  part,  by  which  we  may  hope 
to  secure  possession  of  it.  And  now,  how  far  are  we  employ- 
ing them?  Are  we  taking  any  aggressive  steps  whatever? 
Have  we  not  to  confess  that  we  are  taking  not  one?  That  we 
are  doing  almost,  if  not  quite,  nothing  for  the  increase  of  our 
Church  outside  the  bounds  of  our  congregations  ?  How  many 
churches  have  been  organised  within  the  last  five  years?  I 
believe  not  one.  Within  the  last  ten  years?  Within  the  last 
fifteen  years  perhaps  as  many  as  five,  not  one  of  which  has 
been  regularly  supplied  with  the  preached  word,  in  not  one 
of  which  have  there  been  those  meetings  enjoined  in  our  con- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


327 


stitution,  under  the  direction  of  the  ruling  elders.  Shall  these 
things  continue  to  be  so?  Shall  we  separate  without  making 
some  provision  which  under  God's  blessing  shall  effect  a  mighty 
change?  Must  we  not  send  out  the  evangelist?  Let  us  also 
provide  that  when  the  living  minister  is  not  present  the  recom- 
mendation in  our  Form  of  Government  may  be  followed,  that 
every  vacant  congregation  shall  meet  together  on  the  Lord's 
day  for  the  purpose  of  prayer,  singing  praises,  and  reading 
the  holy  Scriptures,  together  with  the  works  of  approved 
divines,  and  that  the  elders  or  deacons  shall  preside  at  such 
meetings.  There  are  amongst  us  those  who  can  testify  from 
their  own  experience  and  observation  how  the  Lord  blesses 
the  faithful  attention  to  this  duty. 

This  is  no  time  for  us  to  neglect  the  solemn  obligations  that 
rest  upon  us.  Let  us  not  sleep ;  up  and  be  doing,  my  brethren, 
that  the  enemy  drive  us  not  from  the  land.  We  will  not 
come  out  of  this  revolution  as  we  entered  it.  If  we  are  not 
purified  as  a  people,  (and  how  are  we  to  be  purified  except 
by  the  active  dissemination  of  divine  truth?)  if  we  are  not 
purified,  we  will  be  more  polluted,  more  godless  than  ever 
before.  Our  character  will  be  so  fixed  that,  if  the  change  be 
for  the  worse,  many  a  day  must  pass  before  we  can  even  regain 
our  present  estate,  low  as  that  is.  It  is  true,  we  may  well 
be  overwhelmed  when  we  look  at  what  it  is  we  are  called  to 
do,  and  were  the  work  the  work  of  our  puny  arms,  we  might 
well  despair.  But  the  work  is  not  to  be  done  by  our  own 
power ;  we  go  not  in  our  own  strength.  We  go  in  the  strength 
of  the  Lord  God  Omnipotent,  and  through  him  we  can  do  all 
things.  Wrhy  then  should  we  be  faint-hearted  or  dismayed? 
Let  us  hear  our  King  saying  to  us :  "As  I  was  with  Moses,  so 
will  I  be  with  thee ;  I  will  not  fail  thee,  nor  forsake  thee.  Only 
be  thou  strong  and  very  courageous.  Observe  to  do  all  that 
is  written  in  the  book  of  the  law;  then  thou  shalt  make  thy 
way  prosperous,  and  then  shalt  thou  have  good  success." 


328 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


"One  Lord,  One  Faith,  One  Baptism/' 

The;  Characteristics  or  Marks  of  the  Holy  Cathouc 
Church  and  the  Stumbling-Blocks  in  the  Way  of 
those  who  Would  Enter  it. 


Opening  Sermon  Before  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  at 
Columbia,  October,  1902. 


Another  synodical  year  is  now  past.  And  we  have  come 
together  in  the  name  of  the  divine  Head  of  the  Church,  and, 
as  we  trust,  by  his  authority,  to  consult  as  to  the  things  of 
his  kingdom.  We  would  not  dare  to  claim  the  right  to  act 
in  his  name,  unless  called  thereto  by  him;  but,  as  we 
believe,  he  has  appointed  us  to  be  his  representatives  by  the 
voice  of  the  subjects  and  citizens  of  his  kingdom,  under 
the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Though  clothed  with  this 
office,  let  us  profoundly  recognise  our  personal  unworthi- 
ness  and  unfitness,  and  our  inability,  if  left  to  ourselves,  to 
do  anything  to  promote  the  welfare  of  the  Church  and  the 
glory  of  our  Lord.  But  in  his  strength  we  can  do  all  things ; 
and  we  have  a  right  to  claim  for  ourselves  the  promise 
which  he  gave  his  disciples  in  person — that  the  Spirit  of 
truth  will  guide  us  into  all  truth. 

Let  us,  then,  continually  plead  that  the  Holy  Spirit  may 
be  abundantly  poured  out  upon  us,  that  we  may  be  endued 
with  wisdom  from  on  high,  guided  in  all  our  deliberations 
to  right  results,  having  in  all  we  think  or  say  or  do,  as  our 
sole  aim,  the  promotion  of  the  glory  of  God  and  the  ad- 
vancement of  the  interests  of  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour,  Jesus  Christ.  The  wisdom  we  need  is  within  our 
reach ;  for  we  have  God's  positive  promise  that  if  we  ask  for 
it  in  faith,  nothing  wavering,  it  shall  be  given  us,  not  spar- 
ingly, or  grudgingly,  but  liberally. 

During  the  past  year  it  has  pleased  God  to  take  to  himself 
three  of  our  beloved  brethren  of  the  ministry ;  the  patriarch 
of  the  Synod,  the  venerable  James  B.  Dunwody,  after  a  ser- 
vice of  nearly  sixty  years ;  another,  D.  E.  Jordan,  who  was 
in  active  service  for  more  than  forty  years,  and  whose  effi- 


HIS  TEACHINGS 


329 


cient  labors  as  pastor  ended  only  a  few  weeks  ago ;  a  third, 
David  A.  Todd,  who  entered  the  ministry  about  forty  years 
ago,  but  had  been  often  laid  aside  by  illness.  Let  us  thank 
God  for  all  he  enabled  them  to  do  as  his  servants,  and  that 
he  gave  them  to  us  so  long. 

Remembering  the  commission  under  which  we  act,  that 
we  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature,  that  we  teach  all 
nations  to  observe  all  that  Christ  has  commanded — and  that 
those  who  accept  these  teachings,  becoming  true  disciples, 
constitute  the  Church,  it  may  not  be  unprofitable  for  us  on 
an  occasion  like  this  to  review  fundamental  elementary 
principles,  and  to  consider  the  essential  characteristics  of 
these  principles,  and  of  the  body  which  they  form.  These 
are  set  forth  in  the  chapter  we  have  read,  Ephesians  4,  and 
are  condensed  in  the  few  words :  "One  Lord,  one  faith,  one 
baptism/'  Wherever  these  marks  are  found,  there  is  a  true 
member  of  the  one  body — the  Holy  Catholic  Church. 

It  is  not  intended  to  speak  of  the  visible  Church,  or  of  its 
organisation,  its  government,  the  methods  by  which  one 
becomes  connected  with  it,  nor  of  its  modes  of  worship,  its 
ceremonies,  and  the  like ;  but,  at  least  chiefly,  of  the  Church 
invisible,  the  universal,  which  is  independent  of  name,  and 
place,  and  time — the  body  of  Christ,  the  Bride,  the  Lamb's 
Wife.  Membership  in  the  visible  should  imply  membership 
in  the  invisible;  but  unhappily  we  have  only  too  good  rea- 
son to  believe  that  this  is  not  the  case. 

The  first  characteristic  of  the  one  body  of  which  we  are 
speaking  is  the  recognition  of  the  one  Lord. 

This  one  Lord  is  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God 
the  Father,  belief  in  whom  involves  belief  in  the  Triune 
God,  God  the  Father,  God  the  Son,  and  God  the  Holy 
Ghost.  This  God  is  not  blind  Fate — a  first  cause,  imper- 
sonal, unconscious,  followed  irresistibly  by  series  of  effects, 
in  which  no  change  of  any  kind  can  ever  be  brought  about; 
nor  the  God  of  the  Pantheist,  the  totality  of  the  universe; 
nor  a  fetish  or  idol  of  any  kind ;  nor  yet  Allah,  the  God  of 
the  Mohammedan,  or  of  any  who  deny  the  tri-personality  of 
the  one  true  God.  The  foundation  on  which  the  unity  of 
the  Church  rests  is  a  belief  in  one  God  and  Father  of  all, 


330 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


who  is  above  all,  and  through  all,  and  in  all;  the  Son  of 
God,  Jesus  the  Christ ;  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  of  whom  it  is 
written  that  no  man  can  say  that  Jesus  is  the  Lord,  but  by 
the  Holy  Ghost.  And  these  three  are  one  true,  eternal  God, 
the  same  in  substance,  equal  in  power  and  glory. 

Another  characteristic  of  every  member  of  this  body  is 
the  presence  of  one  faith,  which  may  exist  in  various  and 
varying  degrees ;  but  ever  present  it  must  be. 

It  is  not  mere  belief  in  the  existence,  character,  and  work 
of  the  Lord.  One  may  write  a  Life  of  Christ  in  which  he 
states  with  complete  accuracy  all  that  can  be  known  of 
him,  and  may  fully  believe  it  all,  and  yet  have  no  more 
of  true  faith  than  the  devils  who  believe  and  tremble.  One 
under  the  power  of  this  true  faith,  seeing  the  infinite  love  the 
Lord  showed  in  leaving  the  glory  which  he  had  with  his 
Father  before  the  world  was,  and  coming  to  earth  to  take  on 
him  our  nature,  so  that  he  might  obey  and  suffer  in  our 
stead,  that  he  should  accomplish  his  decease,  should  die 
nailed  to  the  cross  like  an  evil-doer;  and  hearing  the  offer 
of  salvation  from  sin  made  possible  by  this  sacrifice, 
responds  with  love  to  love,  accepts  the  offer,  and  trusts  the 
offerer  with  his  whole  heart.  All  true  love  leads  to  earnest 
desire  to  please  the  object  of  the  love;  to  strive  with  the 
help  of  the  promised  indwelling  Holy  Spirit  to  please  him 
who  first  loved  us  and  gave  himself  for  us.  The  Lord  has 
declared  that  the  way  to  please  him  is  to  do  his  command- 
ments ;  to  hate  sin,  to  repent  of  it,  to  turn  away  from  it,  and 
to  devote  every  moment  of  the  whole  life  to  loving  obe- 
dience in  all  things,  great  and  small.  And  this  not  from 
slavish  fear  of  punishment,  but  from  constant  burning  love 
to  the  Lord  who  has  saved  from  sin.  Salvation  from  sin 
indeed  involves  salvation  from  hell ;  but  one  actuated  by 
true  faith  obeys  because  led  thereto  by  love  to  him  who 
received  the  divinely-given  name,  with  its  divinely- 
explained  meaning — "JESUS — for  he  shall  save  his  people 
from  their  sins." 

Anything  calling  itself  faith  which  does  not  thus  work — 
work  by  love — is  dead  faith,  is  no  faith  at  all ;  as  James 
shows  in  what  would  almost  seem  to  be  an  impatient  and 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


331 


contemptuous  argument;  but  of  which  the  necessity  is 
obvious,  in  view  of  the  well-nigh  universal  tendency  to 
divorce  religion  from  holiness,  faith  from  obedience. 

As  to  the  third  mark  of  the  one  body,  baptism — instead 
of  one,  there  seem  to  be  many.  All  agree  that  water  is  to  be 
applied  to  the  subject;  but  here  the  agreement  seems  to 
end.  To  whom  is  baptism  to  be  administered — to  believers 
alone,  or  also  to  those  in  covenant  relation  with  them,  as 
in  the  case  of  circumcision?  Who  may  administer  it — one 
duly  authorised  to  do  so  by  the  Church,  or  in  an  emergency 
any  believer?  How  must  the  water  be  applied?  How 
often,  once  or  three  times?  Must  water  alone  be  used,  or 
water  mixed  with  other  substances?  Then  as  to  its  mean- 
ing— while  all  recognise  it  as  signifying  the  remission  of 
sins — does  it  confer  such  remission,  and  is  it  tied  to  the 
moment  at  which  the  baptismal  act  is  performed?  And 
last,  is  it  necessary  to  salvation? 

On  all  these  and  other  questions  there  is  the  greatest 
variety  of  opinion.  But  do  such  questions  affect  the  vital 
characteristics  of  the  Oneness  ? 

We  see  that  all  who  recognise  baptism  at  all  are  one  in 
believing  that  it  is  to  be  administered  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  that  all 
believers  are  entitled  to  it ;  that  it  is  a  formal  recognition  of 
admission  to  membership  in  the  visible  Church ;  that  it  is  a 
sign  and  seal  of  ingrafting  into  Christ,  of  remission  of  sins 
by  his  blood,  and  regeneration  by  his  Spirit.  On  these 
points  and  others  involved  in  them,  there  is  absolute  unity. 
And  these  constitute  all  the  essential  doctrines  concerning 
baptism. 

Now,  how  are  these  doctrines  affected  by  divergent  or 
contradictory  views  with  regard  to  the  questions  enumer- 
ated a  little  while  ago?  Every  possible  difference  as  to 
these  is  perfectly  consistent  with  unity  touching  the  essen- 
tial doctrines  as  stated. 

It  is  not  intimated  or  affirmed  that  the  subjects  referred  to 
in  the  first  set  of  questions  are  unimportant;  by  no  means. 
But  they  are  not  vitally  important;  relatively,  compared  with 


332 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


the  points  as  to  which  there  is  entire  agreement,  they  sink 
into  insignificance.    They  cannot  affect  true  unity. 

These,  then,  are  the  great  truths  brought  before  our 
minds  by  the  inspired  apostle,  when  he  speaks  of  "One 
Lord,  One  Faith,  One  Baptism."  These  are  the  marks  by 
which  we  distinguish  the  body  of  Christ,  the  holy  catholic 
Church.  Where  these  marks  are  found,  there  is  the  one 
Church,  however  divided  by  minor  differences  into  separate 
and  even  hostile  organisations  by  whatever  names  known; 
minor  differences,  for  if  there  is  unity  in  these  respects,  the 
differences  are  relatively  insignificant. 

But  when  we  look  abroad  over  the  world,  can  we  see  any 
body  characterised  by  such  oneness  as  we  have  been  de- 
scribing? No;  we  cannot.  We  see  indeed  multitudes  of 
persons  who  believe  in  and  worship  the  one  Lord,  exercise 
the  one  faith,  and  have  received  the  one  baptism ;  but  these 
are  divided  into  numberless  groups  differing  endlessly  from 
each  other,  some  even  claiming  that  they  and  they  alone 
are  embraced  within  the  one  Church,  denouncing  all  others 
as  hopelessly  and  fatally  separated  from  Christ  the  Head. 

As  to  the  Bible,  while  all  accept  it  as  a  revelation  from 
God,  and  therefore  authoritative,  some  claim  that  the 
Church  has  power  to  add  to  this  revelation ;  others  deny 
that  this  power  exists.  As  to  relations  between  Church  and 
State,  some  claim  that  the  Church  is  under  the  control 
of  the  State;  others,  that  the  State  is  under  the  control  of 
the  Church;  still  others,  that  Church  and  State  are  wholly 
independent  of  each  other.  As  to  form  of  government,  some 
maintain  that  it  is  purely  democratic ;  others,  that  it  is  rep- 
resentative ;  others,  that  it  is  prelatic,  or  papal.  As  to  God's 
relation  to  his  creatures,  some  recognise  God's  absolute  sov- 
ereignty much  more  fully  and  clearly  than  others.  As  to 
forms  of  worship,  some  hold  that  whatever  is  not  prescribed 
in  the  word  of  God  is  forbidden ;  others,  that  the  Church  has 
the  right  to  institute  such  additional  forms  and  ceremonies 
as  to  it  may  seem  good. 

Then,  as  to  the  ordinances  recognised  by  all :  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  Lord's  Supper,  are  the  elements  used 
actually  the  body  and  blood  of  the  sacrifice  offered  on 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


333 


Calvary,  or  do  they  merely  represent  these ;  and  is  the  par- 
taking of  these  by  the  communicants  to  be  of  one  kind  or  of 
both  kinds?  And  in  the  administration  of  baptism,  as  pre- 
viously asked,  how  is  the  water  to  be  applied,  by  immer- 
sion, or  sprinkling,  or  affusion?  These  and  the  like  ques- 
tions have  been  calmly  examined  into  by  the  best  men  and 
the  greatest  minds  for  centuries  with  the  sincerest  desire 
to  reach  the  truth ;  have  been  debated,  sometimes  with  quiet 
earnestness,  often  in  the  bitterest  and  most  hateful  spirit. 
And  when  the  parties  have  reached  different  conclusions, 
the  result  has  been  the  organisation  of  the  numberless  frag- 
ments of  the  visible  Church  which  we  see,  and  over  and 
over  the  drenching  of  the  earth  in  blood — in  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,  the  Prince  of  Peace. 

It  is  self-evident  that  all  these  fragments  cannot  right- 
fully claim  to  be  infallibly  right.  Errors  more  or  less 
serious  necessarily  exist  in  all  except  one ;  and  it  is  almost 
certain  that  they  exist  in  all.  All  claim  to  rest  on  the  one 
infallible  word;  but  the  interpreters  are  fallible  men;  and 
all  men  and  all  synods  and  councils  composed  of  men  may 
err,  and  doubtless  many,  perhaps  all,  in  all  ages  have  erred 
in  their  decrees,  their  creeds,  their  confessions  of  faith.  The 
presence  and  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost  are  given  indeed 
to  those  who  rightly  ask;  but  not  to  such  an  extent  as  to 
secure  absolutely  against  the  possibility  of  error,  as  was  the 
case  with  the  inspired  writers  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

Yet  all  these  subdivisions  of  the  visible  Church  have  not 
departed  equally  from  the  truth ;  some  have  striven  more 
earnestly  and  successfully  than  others  to  adhere  to  the 
pure  word  of  God — careful  to  add  nothing  and  to  take  away 
nothing  from  what  is  there  set  forth — either  from  the  doc- 
trines or  from  the  forms  whether  of  worship  or  government. 
We  of  course  believe  that  our  beloved  Presbyterian  Church, 
which  constantly  asks,  What  saith  the  Scripture? — and  re- 
quires for  answer  a  "Thus  saith  the  Lord,"  has  in  its  rigidly 
scriptural  doctrines  and  its  simple  apostolic  forms  of  wor- 
ship, most  closely  approached  the  divine  model.  If  we  do 
not  so  believe,  the  sooner  we  free  it  from  our  nominal  con- 
nexion with  it,  the  better  for  it  and  for  ourselves — for 


334 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


honesty  and  for  truth.  We  are  often  scorned  and  derided 
on  account  of  our  narrow,  unyielding  doctrines,  and  our 
bare,  unadorned,  unattractive  forms  of  worship;  but  this 
can  have  no  influence  on  us;  for  it  is  not  what  we  might 
prefer,  what  our  tastes  would  dictate,  that  controls  us;  our 
sole  aim  is  to  discover  exactly  what  God  teaches  and  what 
he  commands.  We  do  not  dare  to  try  to  make  improve- 
ments on  what  God  tells  us  to  believe  or  to  do,  either  in 
substance  or  in  form. 

But  while  we  thus  hold,  do  we  therefore  condemn  all 
others,  and  declare  that  they  rightly  form  no  part  of  the 
visible  Church,  and  arrogate  to  ourselves  the  sole  and  ex- 
clusive title  to  this  name?  Not  at  all.  For  while  we  say 
that,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  they  are  imperfect  or  defective  in 
one  way  or  another,  we  also  say  and  believe  at  the  same 
time  that  they  have  an  indefeasible  right  to  claim  to  be 
true  Churches,  inasmuch  as  the  marks  characterising  the 
invisible  holy  catholic  Church — one  Lord,  one  faith,  one 
baptism — are  found  in  them.  Just  how  far  erroneous  teach- 
ings respecting  other  matters  may  go,  without  nullifying 
the  truth  as  to  these  essential,  vital  doctrines,  without  which 
there  is  no  true  Christianity,  it  would  perhaps  be  dangerous 
to  attempt  to  guess.  But  it  is  worth  while  observing  that 
life-supporting  food  does  not  lose  its  nutritive  power  even 
when  mixed  with  large  quantities  of  foreign  matter,  nor 
is  it  thereby  changed  into  poison.  And  even  amongst 
poisons,  some  are  injurious  without  being  deadly.  May 
we  not  be  in  danger  of  erroneously  concluding  that  some 
bodies,  which  really  teach  these  vital  truths,  have  added  so 
much  that  is  contrary  to  Scripture,  that  they  have  made 
void  the  truth  of  God  by  their  traditions  ?  May  not,  and  does 
not,  the  Holy  Spirit  make  the  teaching  of  the  word,  even 
when  mingled  with  vast  masses  of  false  teaching  on  non- 
vital  points,  effectual  in  convincing  and  converting  sinners 
and  in  building  them  up  in  holiness  and  comfort  through 
faith  unto  salvation? 

The  irresistible  conclusion  from  these  considerations 
seems  to  be  that  we  may  and  must  recognise  as  genuine 
parts  of  Christ's  Church  all  bodies  which  believe  on  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


335 


crucified  and  risen  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  eternal  Son  of 
God,  and  man,  in  two  natures  and  one  person  forever.  This 
belief  involves  all  others  that  are  vital.  In  all  so  united 
to  Christ  the  Head,  the  work  of  sanctification  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  begun,  the  dominion  of  the  whole  body  of  sin  is 
destroyed ;  they  are  more  and  more  quickened  and  strength- 
ened, in  all  saving  graces,  to  the  practice  of  true  holiness, 
without  which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord;  and  so  the 
saints  grow  in  grace,  perfecting  holiness  in  the  fear  of 
God. 

The  term  "Saint"  is  limited  by  many  persons  and  even  in 
some  Churches  to  a  small  number  who  have  been  pre- 
eminent in  some  way;  but  in  the  Scriptures  it  is  applied  to 
all  believers, — all  members  of  Christ's  body  are  equally  en- 
titled to  it.  We  cannot  know  the  hearts  of  others,  and  may 
err;  but  judging  by  the  rule,  By  their  fruits  shall  ye  know 
them,  we  should  use  language  as  accurately  in  speaking  of 
Saint  John  Leighton  Wilson,  Saint  John  B.  Adger,  Saint 
William  Martin,  Saint  John  A.  Broadus,  Saint  Stephen 
Elliott,  Saint  Sarah  Howe,  Saint  Martin  Luther,  as  of  Saint 
Paul,  Saint  Peter,  Saint  Bernard,  Saint  Elizabeth,  or  Saint 
Agnes.  This  may  be  merely  a  trivial  question  about  words ; 
but  may  it  not  at  times  help  you  to  walk  more  circum- 
spectly, more  uprightly,  more  as  it  becometh  saints,  remem- 
bering that  it  is  God  himself  who  honors  you  with  this 
title? 

What  effect  should  the  doctrine  of  the  oneness  of  the  holy 
catholic  Church  have? 

The  unity  of  the  Church  results  from  union  of  the  mem- 
bers with  Christ  the  Head,  all  animated  by  the  same  life; 
if  the  members  are  one  with  Christ,  they  are  one  with  each 
other.  This  union  is  closer  than  that  between  parent  and 
child,  brother  and  brother;  there  is  no  relation  on  earth  by 
which  it  can  be  adequately  illustrated;  but  that  which  exists 
between  husband  and  wife  furnishes  the  nearest  approach. 
Parental  love,  filial  love,  brotherly  love,  all  result  from  the 
relationships  existing;  but  love  is  the  essence  of  marriage, 
and  married  love  is  the  type  that  God  himself  employs  in 


336 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


his  word  as  the  best  illustration  of  that  which  binds  the 
members  of  his  Church  into  one. 

The  more  fully  this  relationship  is  recognised,  the  greater 
will  be  the  love:  love  to  Christ  our  Head,  and  love  to  our 
fellow-members,  and  also  such  love  to  other  men  as  Christ 
himself  feels.  As  previously  seen,  true  love  to  Christ  can- 
not exist  without  producing  strong  desire  to  do  his  will  in 
all  things ;  not  only  keeping  his  commandments,  but  seeking 
to  do  for  our  fellow-members  and  our  fellow-men  univer- 
sally all  that  love  can  prompt.  While  we  are  to  do  good 
to  all  men  as  we  have  opportunity,  yet  specially  to  the 
household  of  faith.  Though  this  language  does  not  apply 
exclusively  to  the  various  groups  called  Churches,  it  cer- 
tainly includes  them.  Does  each  of  these  Churches  contain- 
ing true  members  of  the  one  body,  love  the  others  and  do 
them  good  as  they  have  opportunity? 

Very  far  from  it.  So  far,  indeed,  that  we  can  find  no 
where  on  earth  bodies  contending  against  each  other  with 
more  virulent  animosity;  fighting  often  not  merely  with 
words  expressing  the  most  savage  malignity,  but  resorting 
to  death-dealing  weapons,  seeking  to  exterminate  all  who 
differ  as  to  the  doctrines  and  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the 
true  Church.  We  are  horrified  when  we  hear  at  this  day 
and  in  our  own  land,  that  a  community,  maddened  by  the 
commission  of  the  most  shocking  of  crimes,  has  burned  at 
the  stake  the  brutish  criminal ;  but  thousands  and  thousands 
of  pure  good  men  and  women  have  been  thus  put  to  death 
on  account  of  some  difference  of  opinion.  And  for  milder 
punishments  of  such  differences,  ingenuity  has  been  taxed, 
as  never  by  secular  powers,  to  invent  instruments  of  tor- 
ture which  it  makes  one  sick  at  heart  to  see  or  even  to 
think  of,  and  causes  one  to  wonder  whether  the  inventors 
were  men — or  devils  escaped  from  hell. 

At  this  day  these  brutal  atrocities  do  not  characterise  the 
sufferings  inflicted  by  professing  Christians  on  each  other; 
but  much  of  the  same  spirit  still  exists.  If  nothing  more 
can  be  done,  the  most  caustic,  acrimonious,  venomous 
execrations  are  poured  out  against  the  offender.  To  such  a 
degree  has  this  spirit  and  language  belonged  to  discussions 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


337 


concerning  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  that  a  new  phrase  has 
been  invented  to  express  the  extreme  bitterness  of  the  dis- 
putants— hence  the  strange  combination — odium  theologi- 
cum.  The  sight  of  the  gentleness  and  love  of  Christians 
towards  each  other  ought  to  be  such  as  to  call  forth  excla- 
mations of  admiration ;  but  how  often,  instead,  is  "See  how 
these  Christians  love  one  another"  a  scornful,  cutting  sar- 
casm. 

This  state  of  things  could  never  have  existed,  could  never 
more  exist,  if  Christians  would  recognise  the  fact  that  they 
are  brethren,  brethren  of  and  in  the  Lord — which  they 
would  come  to  do  more  and  more  clearly  should  they  dwell 
more  constantly  on  the  bonds  by  which  they  are  made  one, 
instead  of  on  the  differences  concerning  those  matters  of 
comparatively  slight  importance  which  tend  to  drive  them 
apart.  Should  all  Christians  thus  be  led  to  love  as  brethren, 
and  to  act  under  the  influence  of  that  love,  how  would  the 
face  of  the  world  at  once  undergo  a  blessed  change ! 

Such  change  would  not  and  should  not  bring  about  one 
result  which  might  be  supposed  to  follow  of  necessity:  it 
would  not  under  present  conditions  make  it  desirable  that 
the  lines  which  now  separate  the  various  parts  of  the  visible 
Church  be  obliterated.  So  long  as  the  differences  on  minor 
points  exist,  on  which  these  lines  depend,  the  separate 
groups  should  remain  as  they  are.  Painstaking  examination 
of  the  oracles  of  the  truth  should  go  on  in  order  to  ascertain 
their  exact  meaning;  and  earnest  contention  for  the  faith 
once  delivered  to  the  saints  should  continue,  but  conducted 
in  a  spirit  of  love.  And  when  this  has  led  two  or  more  to 
reach  the  same  conclusion,  to  be  agreed,  then  let  them 
become  one  in  outward  form  as  well  as  in  fact.  But  except 
they  be  truly  agreed,  how  shall  they  walk  together  ?  What 
has  just  been  said  does  not  commend  or  encourage  schism, 
but  tends  rather  to  prevent  it.  Observation  shows  us  that 
in  Churches  which  lay  the  greatest  stress  on  external  unity, 
schisms  and  heresies, — using  the  words  in  the  Bible  sense, — 
seem  to  prevail  to  a  much  greater  extent  than  elsewhere. 

There  is  another  very  strong  reason  why  the  doctrine 
and  proofs  of  the  oneness  of  the  Church  should  be  made 


22— w 


338 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


prominent  in  our  teachings  and  in  our  thoughts — and  that 
is  that  a  deadly  stumbling-block  may  be  removed  from  the 
pathway  of  inquirers  after  the  truth.  When  seeking  to  lead 
unbelievers  to  accept  Christianity — to  believe  on  the  Lord 
Jesus — doubtless  many  of  you  have  been  met  with  the 
question — sometimes  scoffingly  asked,  sometimes  in  deep 
earnestness, — Which  Christianity  do  you  mean  ?  There  are 
so  many  Churches  each  claiming  that  it  alone  rightly  repre- 
sents it,  and  that  all  others  are  wrong,  that  I  cannot  tell 
what  to  do.  It  seems  most  likely  to  me  that  all  are  wrong. 
So  much  seems  clear,  that  it  must  require  long  and  careful 
study  to  find  out  anything  about  it.  I  have  not  time  to  spend 
on  the  question  when  the  result  is  so  uncertain.  Agree 
among  yourselves;  and  when  you,  who  are  experts,  have 
done  so,  come  back  to  me,  and  I  will  see  about  it.  This 
seems  to  be  a  reasonable  request.  It  must  seem  so  to  many 
of  us,  for  the  name  being  changed,  the  story  is  told  of  us. 
How  often  have  we  heard  it  said,  perhaps  have  said  it  our- 
selves, this  time  concerning  a  scientific  question  which  we 
have  been  invited  to  consider,  Well,  we  don't  know  any- 
thing about  it  ourselves ;  but  when  you  experts  agree  among 
yourselves,  come  and  tell  us,  and  we  will  see  about  it.  And 
this,  even  when  our  position  upon  it  may  directly  or  indi- 
rectly involve  the  death  of  souls  looking  to  us  for  help. 
Now  what  shall  be  our  reply?  As  honest  men  we  must 
say,  Yes,  you  are  right;  Christianity  so  judged  is  not  one, 
but  many,  if  you  accept  appearances.  But  if  we  can  go 
on  and  truly  say  that  some  of  the  differences  which  separate 
Christianity  into  many  Churches  are  important  indeed,  but, 
notwithstanding  the  internecine  strife  they  have  occasioned, 
are  yet  of  such  a  character  as  not  to  disturb  or  affect  the 
real  and  fundamental  unity,  as  has  been  proved,  then  we 
have  a  right  to  claim  that  the  objections  have  been  fairly 
met,  and  that  the  truth  of  Christianity  ought  to  be  fully 
accepted.  The  evil  here  described,  and  the  terrible  con- 
sequences flowing  from  it,  are  not  imaginary,  but  are  fear- 
fully common ;  perhaps  most  of  all,  amongst  those  who  are 
the  most  intelligent  in  other  respects. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


339 


It  may  be  permitted  to  illustrate  by  an  actual  case.  It 
was  my  good  fortune  some  years  ago,  with  a  large  number 
of  other  members  of  the  American  Association  for  the 
Advancement  of  Science,  which  was  in  session  at  Brook- 
lyn, to  enjoy  a  day's  sail  on  the  Hudson  from  New  York 
City  to  West  Point.  By  a  tacit  agreement  religious  subjects 
are  not  introduced  during  formal  meetings  of  that  Associa- 
tion ;  but  on  a  holiday  there  is  no  such  restriction.  Among 
the  Brooklyn  members  there  was  one  who  was  conspicu- 
ously kind  and  attentive  to  his  associates.  One  of  these 
from  a  distant  State,  for  this  and  other  reasons,  became  spe- 
cially interested  in  him,  and  took  the  liberty  from  time  to 
time  of  speaking  to  him  on  the  subject  of  personal  religion. 
At  last  the  Brooklyn  friend  candidly  stated  that  for  some 
years  he  had  given  no  attention  to  the  matter,  for  the  rea- 
son that,  having  formerly  done  so  fully  and  fairly,  he  had 
failed  to  find  sufficient  reason  to  continue  his  inquiries,  in 
view  of  the  contentions  of  the  so-called  Christian  Churches, 
each  pronouncing  false  what  others  declared  to  be  true — 
to  an  extent  that  some  did  not  hesitate  to  maintain  that  the 
others  were  not  Churches  at  all,  and  that  out  of  their  own 
pale  there  could  be  no  salvation.  He  therefore  had  dis- 
missed the  subject  from  his  mind  as  not  deserving  further 
thought,  since  there  seemed  to  be  so  little  hope  of  ever 
reaching  the  truth. 

To  this  it  was  replied  that  what  he  said  was  unhappily 
only  too  true;  but  that  on  fundamental  and  vital  points 
there  was  absolute  agreement,  that  the  bitter  strifes  which 
he  described  were  concerning  matters  relatively  insignifi- 
cant. He  said  he  had  often  been  strongly  attracted  by  much 
he  had  seen  of  Christianity;  and  if  that  statement  could  be 
proved,  he  would  at  once  become  a  Christian  himself. 

It  was  then  proposed  to  submit  the  question  to  an  experi- 
mental test  of  the  severest.  This  was  assented  to.  The 
interlocutor  was  a  Presbyterian  of  the  straitest  sect;  and 
there  was  on  board  another  member  of  the  Association,  a 
Roman  Catholic  priest,  perhaps  the  most  prominent  in 
Brooklyn,  a  regent  of  the  University  of  New  York,  chosen 
by  the  voters  of  the  State — Father  Maloney  by  name.  It 


340 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


was  suggested  that  he  be  invited  to  hold  a  conversation 
with  the  Presbyterian,  which  invitation  was  courteously 
accepted;  and  after  the  object  in  view  was  explained  to 
him  and  to  the  large  group  of  members  who  had  gathered 
around,  Father  Maloney  said  he  would  cheerfully  answer 
any  questions  that  might  be  put.  Whereupon  substantially 
the  following  colloquy  took  place,  the  Presbyterian  asking 
the  questions,  and  the  Roman  Catholic  priest  giving  the 
hearty  answers : 

"You  believe  that  there  is  a  God,  a  personal  being,  who  is 
infinite,  eternal,  and  unchangeable,  in  his  power,  holiness, 
justice,  love,  and  truth?"   "I  do." 

"You  believe  that  there  are  three  persons  in  the  Godhead 
— the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost, — and  that  these 
three  are  one  God,  the  same  in  substance,  equal  in  power 
and  glory?"  "Yes." 

"You  believe  that  the  Son  of  God  became  man,  and  that 
he  continues  to  be  God  and  man,  in  two  distinct  natures 
and  one  person  forever?"  "Certainly." 

"You  believe  that  God  has  revealed  his  will  to  us,  and 
that  this  revelation  is  contained  in  the  Bible,  and  that  every 
part  of  the  Bible  is  true?"   "That  is  my  belief." 

"You  believe  that  the  Son  of  God,  the  Divine  Man,  after 
a  life  of  some  years  on  earth,  was  put  to  death  on  the  cross, 
that  he  thus  died  that  he  might  make  atonement  for  the 
sins  of  all  who  should  believe  on  him?"  "That  is  the  only 
foundation  of  my  hope  of  salvation." 

"You  believe  that  all  who  sincerely  believe  on  him,  will 
repent  of  sin,  trust  him,  love  him,  and  do  his  will,  con- 
stantly growing  in  holiness  while  life  lasts?"  "Assuredly." 

"You  believe  in  what  is  commonly  called  the  Apostles' 
Creed?"  "Yes." 

"You  believe  that  all  who  so  believe  and  act  God  will 
take  to  be  with  himself  in  glory  forever?"  "Thank  God  for 
giving  me  the  right  so  to  believe." 

After  answering  all  these  questions,  Father  Maloney 
affirmed  that  they  set  forth  all  the  essentials  of  Christianity, 
and  closed  by  saying  with  emotion :  "Yes — all  these  things  I 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


341 


believe  with  all  my  heart.  Blessed  be  God,  and  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  my  only  hope." 

The  Brooklyn  member  admitted  that  the  proof  of  the 
unity  of  belief  on  the  part  of  the  representatives  of  the 
Presbyterian  and  the  Roman  Catholic  Churches  was  com- 
plete ;  that  these  were  the  extremes,  and  that  if  there  are  no 
vital  differences  between  them,  there  are  none  anywhere. 
To  this  general  assent  was  given. 

It  is  gratifying  to  be  able  to  add  that  at  a  subsequent 
meeting  of  the  Association,  the  Brooklyn  member  informed 
me  that,  his  apparently  insuperable  difficulty  having  been 
removed  by  this  conversation,  he  had  become  a  sincere 
believer  in  Jesus  Christ. 

Now  if  the  method  illustrated  in  this  example  should  be 
pursued,  might  we  not  reasonably  hope  that  the  harm  done 
by  this  grievous  stumbling-block  would  be  greatly  lessened, 
or  even  wholly  removed?  It  is  certainly  true  that  the 
things  about  which  we  agree  are  of  vastly  greater  import- 
ance than  the  things  about  which  we  differ.  Then  surely 
(may  it  not  again  be  urged?)  we  should  let  our  minds  dwell 
more  on  this  happy  truth,  and  in  our  conversation  and  in 
our  public  ministrations  teach  it  more  fully  and  lay  more 
stress  upon  it.  If  any  Churches  deny  what  has  been  said, 
let  us  go  forward  teaching  the  truth,  not  turning  aside  to 
wrangle  about  it,  but  hoping  and  believing  that  with 
increasing  light  we  shall  all  see  eye  to  eye. 

But  besides  the  stumbling-block  which  we  have  been  con- 
sidering, there  are  others  which  directly  or  indirectly  tend 
to  repel  from  the  Church  seekers  after  the  truth,  or  at 
least  to  bolster  up  those  who  are  trying  to  justify  their 
refusal  to  accept  the  offers  of  the  gospel. 

In  all  ages  of  the  Church,  not  merely  under  the  name 
Christian,  but  before  the  days  of  Christ  on  earth  as  well, 
there  has  been  a  strong  tendency  to  assume  that  man  is 
wiser  than  God,  and  to  act  accordingly.  This  blasphemy 
is  not  often  put  into  as  plain  words  as  it  once  was,  when, 
after  Jesus  had  declared  to  his  disciples  his  will,  that  is, 
God's  will,  Simon  Peter,  who  had  just  proclaimed  him 
Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  dared  to  rebuke  him,  say- 


342 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


ing,  "That  be  far  from  thee,  Lord."  Yet,  though  not  always 
so  directly,  the  same  implied  assumption  of  superior  wis- 
dom has  been  shown  times  without  number,  and  where  it 
might  be  least  expected.  Once  the  Lord  gave  very  ex- 
plicit directions  to  Saul,  whom  he  had  set  up  to  be  king 
of  Israel,  as  to  what  he  was  to  do.  Part  of  these  directions 
were  observed ;  but  Saul  thought  some  of  them  were  rather 
needlessly  harsh  and  wasteful,  and  therefore  he  interpreted 
them  liberally,  and  while  disobeying,  regarded  himself  as 
substantially  obeying,  and  really  doing  what  was  much 
better.  Perhaps  Agag  did  not  deserve  quite  so  severe  pun- 
ishment; and  as  to  the  sheep  and  oxen,  and  other  things, 
why  not  spare  them  for  the  present,  to  sacrifice  unto  the 
Lord?  This  would  be  destroying  them  after  all,  and  the 
magnificence  of  the  sacrifices  would  make  the  services  very 
attractive  and  popular,  and  greatly  promote  the  piety  of 
the  people.  So  that  on  meeting  Samuel  and  making  report 
to  him,  he  piously  and  boldly  began  by  saying,  "Blessed  be 
thou  of  the  Lord;  I  have  performed  the  commandment  of 
the  Lord" — and  proceeded  to  show  how  he  had  done  so 
not  only,  but  had  greatly  improved  on  the  commandment 
by  softening  the  harsh  points,  and  providing  for  more 
acceptable  worship  on  the  part  of  the  people.  Then  came 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  "Hath  the  Lord  as  great  delight  in 
burnt  offerings  and  sacrifices,  as  in  obeying  the  voice  of  the 
Lord?  Behold,  to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice,  and  to 
hearken  than  the  fat  of  rams.  Because  thou  hast  rejected 
the  word  of  the  Lord,  he  has  rejected  thee  from  being  king." 
This  solemn  word  has  reverberated  through  all  the  ages 
since  then,  and  it  might  have  been  expected  to  prevent 
the  awful  sin  condemned ;  but  from  that  day  to  this,  such  is 
man's  arrogant  self-confidence  and  trust  in  his  own  superior 
wisdom,  that  the  earthly  rulers  of  the  Church  have  been 
continually  adding  to  and  taking  from  God's  command- 
ments, wholly  unconscious  that  in  so  doing  they  have  been 
guilty  of  iniquity  and  idolatry. 

Very  often  the  Church  has  acted  and  is  acting  as  if  the 
Lord  had  never  said,  "Ye  shall  not  add  unto  the  word 
which  I  command  you,  neither  shall  ye  diminish  aught 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


343 


from  it,  that  ye  may  keep  the  commandments  of  the  Lord 
your  God  which  I  command  you."  "What  thing  soever  I 
command  you,  observe  to  do  it;  thou  shalt  not  add  thereto, 
nor  diminish  from  it."  The  Saviour  himself  says :  "In  vain 
do  they  worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines  the  command- 
ments of  men ;  for,  laying  aside  the  commandment  of  God, 
ye  hold  the  tradition  of  men.  Full  well  ye  reject  the  com- 
mandment of  God,  that  ye  may  keep  your  own  tradition." 
So  through  the  apostle  Paul,  we  are  warned  against  a 
"voluntary  humility  and  worshipping  of  angels,  subjection 
to  ordinances  after  the  commandments  and  doctrines  of 
men ;  which  things  have  indeed  a  show  of  wisdom  in  will 
worship  and  humility  and  neglecting  of  the  flesh." 

But  notwithstanding  all, — doctrines,  rites,  ceremonies, 
the  observance  of  holy  days,  have,  by  different  branches  of 
the  Church,  been  added  to  and  variously  modified  with 
hardly  any  limit.  How  far  this  process  can  be  carried  with- 
out destroying  the  vitality  of  any  branch,  separating  it  from 
the  one  body,  who  shall  say?  It  is  from  such  additions  and 
modifications  that  the  greater  number  of  differences  be- 
tween the  various  branches  of  the  visible  Church  spring. 

It  may  be  observed  that  a  very  great  part  of  the  additions 
and  changes  in  doctrine  and  practice  which  would  fall 
under  the  description  given,  and  which  we  would  call  cor- 
ruptions, have  originated  in  the  best  motives,  just  as  in  the 
case  of  Saul, — a  desire  to  glorify  God  and  to  make  his  ser- 
vice more  attractive  and  acceptable  to  men.  But  praise- 
worthy as  is  this  motive  and  desire,  it  cannot  change  dis- 
obedience to  God  into  holiness.  Saul's  stout  argument  in 
his  own  defence,  that  his  liberal  interpretation  of  God's 
command,  and  his  doing  what  would  contribute  in  a  higher 
degree  to  the  glory  of  God  and  the  holiness  of  men,  was 
utterly  rejected.  Nor  did  Peter's  affectionate  care  for  the 
welfare  of  his  Lord  meet  with  a  better  fate.  No,  errors  are 
not  made  less  harmful  by  intermixture  with  truth;  indeed, 
they  are  made  thereby  all  the  more  dangerous ;  it  is  the 
truth  present  that  causes  the  intermingled  error  to  be  more 
readily  accepted. 


344 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


In  the  case  of  moral  laws,  what  has  been  said  of  doctrines 
and  rites  and  ceremonies  fully  applies.  As  has  been  said, 
however  blasphemous  it  may  sound,  it  is  yet  true  that  man 
has  often  regarded  himself  as  wiser  and  holier  than  God, 
and  has  shown  it  by  commanding  what  God  has  not  com- 
manded, and  forbidding  what  God  has  not  forbidden,  but 
even,  it  may  be,  commands.  The  number  of  humanly  man- 
ufactured sins  is  very  great.  There  is  hardly  a  branch  of 
the  Church  which  has  not  indulged  in  this  manufacture. 
And  here,  as  in  the  other  similar  cases,  not  a  few  persons 
exhaust  their  efforts  to  be  holy  in  scrupulously  keeping 
the  man-made  commandments,  to  the  comparative  disre- 
gard of  the  utterances  of  the  Almighty  Ruler  and  sole  Law- 
giver of  the  Universe. 

Many  errors  originate  in  a  strong  desire  to  recast  truth 
in  popular  moulds ;  to  smooth  away  harshness  of  aspect ;  to 
accommodate  to  modern  thought;  to  justify  the  cry  of 
Peace,  Peace,  though  there  may  be  no  peace;  to  abstain 
from  appearing  to  violate  good  taste.  And  all  this  may  be 
accomplished  by  applying  the  principle  of  so-called  liberal 
interpretation  to  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures.  This  lib- 
erality, so  much  vaunted,  has  not  as  its  object  the  discov- 
ery of  the  exact  truth;  but  rather  the  reshaping  of  God's 
teachings  by  clipping,  and  trimming,  and  bending,  and  pol- 
ishing them,  so  as  to  make  them  fit  into  our  preconceived 
opinions  and  wishes;  it  is  mere  indifference  to  the  truth. 
Whatever  our  view  as  to  strict  construction  and  liberal 
interpretation  in  other  spheres  may  be,  clearly  in  seeking  to 
learn  exactly  God's  will  from  his  word,  nothing  but  the 
strictest  construction  should  control.  It  is  only  thus  that 
the  causes  can  be  made  to  disappear  which  separate  the 
parts  of  the  visible  Church. 

When  this  method  shall  be  universally  applied  by  Chris- 
tian men  desiring  to  learn,  with  the  Holy  Spirit's  aid,  ex- 
actly the  truth  of  God,  then  soon  will  come  forth,  seen  to  be 
one  even  on  earth,  a  glorious  Church,  not  having  spot,  or 
wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing. 

But  there  are  still  other  ways  by  which  spots  and  wrin- 
kles obscure,  or  even  keep  altogether  from  being  seen,  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


345 


beauties  and  glories  of  this  one  body.  These  consist  not 
only  in  the  doctrines  and  observances  originated  by  man 
without  authority  from  God,  and  the  decrees  commanding 
acceptance  of  these  and  obedience  to  them  on  penalties 
varying  from  rebuke  to  imprisonment  and  death,  but  in  the 
arguments  put  forth  by  church  authority  to  support  both 
the  divine  teachings  themselves  and  the  false  interpreta- 
tions of  these  teachings.  Discourses,  synodical  decrees,  and 
books,  filled  with  false  statements  and  false  reasonings,  have 
been  scattered  everywhere  by  the  thousand,  from  apostolic 
times  to  this  day,  claiming  to  defend  and  uphold  Bible 
truth. 

How  often  do  we  hear,  and  how  often  have  been  heard 
for  nearly  two  thousand  years,  good  men,  truthful  men,  de- 
nouncing as  false  and  utterly  inconsistent  with  belief  in  the 
Bible  and  Christianity,  facts,  and  teachings,  and  principles, 
which  are  well  known  to  be  true  by  all  intelligent  persons. 
These  good  men  have  honestly  thought  all  the  time  that 
they  were  defending  the  truth,  while  in  fact  they  were  mak- 
ing sure  its  rejection  by  vast  numbers.  That  the  Bible  and 
the  Church  have  survived  such  defences,  is  a  very  strong 
proof  that  they  are  from  God,  that  "the  Church,  the  ground 
and  pillar  of  the  truth,  is  indeed  founded  on  a  rock,  and 
the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it."  Oftentimes 
most  terrific  assaults  have  been  made  from  without  by  pro- 
fessed assailants;  but  these  have  done  little  or  no  harm. 
But  the  well-meant  defences  referred  to,  made  by  those 
within,  have  resulted  in  untold  disaster.  The  cause  of 
surprise  is  not  that  the  truth  has  withstood  the  assaults  of 
its  foes,  but  that  it  has  survived  the  defences  of  its  friends. 
Yet  even  they  cannot  destroy  the  foundations  or  shake  the 
walls  of  the  citadel  of  the  King.  It  still  stands,  and  shall 
stand  forever. 

Happily  belief  in  the  truth  which  God  makes  known  to 
us  in  his  holy  word  does  not  depend  on  our  study  of  his- 
torical evidences  or  abstruse  academic  arguments.  If  it 
were  so,  how  could  the  world  be  saved?  Such  rushlights 
are  not  needed  to  show  us  that  the  sun  shines  in  the  heav- 
ens.  The  entrance  of  the  word  giveth  light.  Accompanied 


346 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


by  the  quickening  Spirit,  it  carries  full  conviction  that  it  is 
the  word  of  God,  and  therefore  infallibly  true.  There  are, 
indeed,  many  arguments  of  many  kinds  whereby  it  abun- 
dantly proves  itself  to  be  so,  yet  our  full  persuasion  and 
assurance  of  the  infallible  truth  and  divine  authority  thereof 
is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  bearing  wit- 
ness by  and  with  the  word  in  our  hearts. 

One  more  barrier  and  stumbling-block  in  the  way  of 
those  who  would  enter  the  kingdom  of  God  must  be  men- 
tioned :  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  lives  of  those  who  claim 
to  be  already  within;  who  profess  to  have  taken  as  their 
own  the  one  Lord,  to  have  that  faith  which  works  by  love, 
showing  its  existence  by  true  obedience  to  the  Lord's  will. 
We  have  already  learned  that  such  profession,  if  not  shown 
to  be  genuine  by  works,  is  empty  and  vain — a  fatal  mistake, 
when  not  a  proof  of  hypocrisy.  Still  we  must  remember 
that  even  in  the  most  loyal  subjects  and  sincerest  believers, 
sanctification  is  a  work,  not  an  act;  is  gradual,  not  instan- 
taneous ;  and  that  perfect  freedom  from  sin  is  not  reached 
in  this  life.  Hence  we  should  be  careful  before  we  decide 
that  this  man  is  self-deceived,  that  one  a  hypocrite ;  for  we 
do  not  know  the  heart ;  God  does.  But  for  such  reflections 
it  would  be  very  hard  for  us  to  keep  from  denouncing  as 
hypocrites  many  of  our  fellow-men  who  claim  the  one  Lord 
as  their  King.  And  it  requires  no  tedious  search  to  find 
examples  in  the  Bible  that  should  give  us  pause.  Not  to 
speak  of  Old  Testament  saints,  look  at  poor  Simon  Peter, 
often  first-named  of  the  disciples,  and  one  of  those  most 
highly  favored  of  the  Lord:  in  the  court  of  Pontius  Pilate 
see  his  cowardice  and  his  hypocrisy,  his  cursing  and  his 
lying;  and  again,  long  after  his  restoration,  after  years  of 
blessed  and  successful  work  in  the  ministry,  see  the  mani- 
festation of  the  same  cowardice  in  the  acts  for  which  he  was 
so  sharply  rebuked  by  his  fellow-apostle  Paul.  Then  see 
the  description  of  the  church  at  Corinth  given  in  Paul's 
epistle  when  he  says  of  the  conduct  of  some  in  celebrating 
the  communion,  "One  is  hungry,  one  is  drunken."  But  let 
us  turn  away  from  this  dismal  picture,  carrying  with  us  the 
lesson  of  charity  to  keep  us  from  unjust  and  untrue  judg- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


347 


ments  with  regard  to  those  who  now  live  as  well.  Perhaps 
there  is  nothing  better  fitted  to  impress  on  us  the  fact 
that  those  called  saints  by  inspired  writers  were  but  par- 
tially sanctified  than  the  exhortations  addressed  to  them  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  through  the  apostles. 

But  these  considerations  do  not  diminish  the  terrible 
effect  produced  on  the  world  by  the  sins  of  professors  of  the 
faith.  We  cannot  expect  unbelievers  to  make  allowances 
when  they  are  trying  to  find  out  what  kind  of  tree  Chris- 
tianity is  by  looking  at  the  fruit  it  bears.  Now,  truth  is  in 
order  to  goodness ;  it  is  claimed  that  faith  proves  its  exist- 
ence by  works,  by  keeping  the  commandments.  These  peo- 
ple, say  unbelievers,  profess  to  be  Christians — are  they  any 
better  than  we  are?  Without  going  over  all  their  com- 
mandments, let  us  select  one  or  two  as  a  test;  for  they 
tell  us  that  he  that  shall  offend  in  one  point  is  guilty  of  all. 
Take  the  eighth,  then :  Thou  shalt  not  steal.  Do  these  pro- 
fessing Christians  keep  that  any  better  than  multitudes  of 
our  neighbors  and  friends  who  make  no  such  profession? 
We  often  see  them  borrowing  money;  buying  goods  on 
credit;  promising  to  make  payment  at  definite  times,  and 
the  like.  Now,  do  they  make  the  payments  as  promised  any 
more  faithfully  than  we  unbelievers  do?  No,  they  do  not, 
so  far  as  we  can  see ;  very  often  they  fail  to  keep  the  prom- 
ises made — that  is  lying;  and  they  keep  the  property  they 
received  on  the  strength  of  their  promises — and  that  is  steal- 
ing. In  the  whole  matter  of  debt-paying,  see  how  lying  and 
stealing  go  hand  in  hand. 

Let  us  look  at  an  example  which  may  have  a  painfully 
close  application  even  in  our  Presbyterian  Synod.  During 
the  last  seventy  years  many  promises  of  money  on  subscrip- 
tion lists  and  in  notes  have  been  made  for  your  Theological 
Seminary;  how  many  of  these  promises  have  been  broken? 
And  yet  they  were  made  by  persons  belonging  to  the  best 
class  of  people  on  earth  of  which  I  know  anything. 

Of  course  these  failures  to  pay  can  be  characterised  by 
the  terms  lying  and  stealing  only  where  it  has  not  become 
impossible  through  misfortune  to  make  the  promised  pay- 
ment.   But  in  the  case  of  misfortune — should  after  a  while 


348 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


ability  to  pay  return,  if  the  return  were  after  the  expiration 
of  the  time  prescribed  in  a  statute  of  limitations,  or  if  one 
had  passed  through  bankruptcy  however  honestly,  what 
proportion  of  Christian  debtors  would  then  make  payment? 
Extremely  rarely  one ;  and  then  it  is  heralded  over  the  world 
as  almost  a  miracle  of  honesty.  The  debtor  in  such  case 
pleads  with  his  conscience  that  the  debt  has  been  discharged 
by  law ;  and  that  he  therefore  rightfully  keeps  what  belongs 
to  his  neighbor — forgetting  that  God,  the  Lord  of  the  con- 
science, has  no  statute  of  limitations. 

Any  other  commandment  taken  as  a  test  would  yield 
similar  results — as  for  example,  the  third — how  fearfully 
common  is  the  violation  of  it  by  church  members.  The  pro- 
fane use  of  the  holy  name  itself  by  these  is  perhaps  rare. 
But  how  very  often  do  the  unbelieving  and  profane  hear  the 
church  member  use  expressions  identical  with  their  own, 
under  the  influence  of  the  same  feelings  and  for  the  same 
purposes,  except  that,  instead  of  the  holy  name  itself,  ab- 
breviations or  disguises,  or  unmeaning  sounds,  are  substi- 
tuted— the  veil  being  too  slight  to  keep  an  open-eyed  ob- 
server from  perceiving  that  the  moral  character  is  the  same 
in  each  case.  We  shall  not  undertake  to  decide  which  is 
the  more  heinous  sin — the  honest,  outspoken,  unhypocritical 
profaneness,  or  the  same  act  with  the  attempt  to  conceal 
added. 

Again :  God's  name  includes  his  word — anything  where- 
by he  makes  himself  known — hence  jokes,  witticisms,  funny 
stories,  based  on  biblical  expressions,  are  clearly  instances 
of  taking  the  Lord's  name  in  vain ;  and  these  are  painfully 
frequent  even  among  professing  Christians.  But  it  cannot 
be  necessary  to  pursue  this  point  farther. 

Can  we  much  blame  the  unbeliever  if  he  tells  us :  You  say 
faith  leads  its  possessor  to  do  right.  I  do  not  see  how  that 
can  be;  but  I  have  tested  the  matter  in  the  only  way  I 
know  of,  and  which  also  is  recommended  in  your  Bible — and 
you  see  the  result.  Wherein  am  I  not  justified  in  thinking 
that  your  Christianity  is  all  humbug  or  fanaticism ;  and  in 
dismissing  the  whole  subject? 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


349 


Is  there  not  much  palliation  for  such  reasoning  and  such 
conclusion  in  the  lives  of  great  numbers  of  professing  Chris- 
tians whom  it  is  fair  for  the  unbelievers  to  take  as  average 
samples  of  the  product  of  faith?  True,  they  ought  not  to  do 
so;  and  the  consequence  is  their  own  undoing;  but  will 
they  alone  be  condemned?  If  they  perish  because  driven 
from  the  path  of  safety  by  our  unrighteous  example,  they 
not  the  less  will  be  taken  away  in  their  iniquity;  but  we 
have  God's  word  for  it,  that  their  blood  will  be  required 
at  our  hands. 

Here  there  is,  then,  the  combination  of  every  possible 
worthy  motive  that  can  impel  to  the  most  earnest  striving 
after  perfect  holiness :  first,  that  we  may  escape  the  denun- 
ciations which  God  has  uttered  against  the  unfaithful  ser- 
vant and  watchman,  by  avoiding  everything  that  could  be 
a  stumbling-block  to  those  who  would  enter  the  way  that 
leads  to  life ;  then,  our  love  for  our  fellow-men  leading  us  to 
desire  to  win  them  to  Christ,  who  honors  us  in  allowing  us 
to  become  co-workers  with  him ;  and  last  and  chief  est  of  all, 
our  love  to  Christ,  which  accompanies  all  true  faith  in  him. 

We  have  now  seen  something  of  the  unity  of  the  Church 
— the  body  of  Christ,  which  is  holy,  and  catholic;  each  mem- 
ber united  with  Christ  the  Head,  believing  in  him,  and 
therefore  born  of  God,  and  united  by  bonds  which  can  never 
be  broken. 

This  body — the  Church  of  Christ — has  thus  far  been 
spoken  of  chiefly  as  it  exists  on  earth.  But  that  which 
begins  now  ends  never. 

Let  us  consider  for  a  few  moments  the  state  of  the  saints 
who  have  passed  from  the  ranks  of  the  Church  militant  to 
the  Church  triumphant — to  the  communion  in  glory  which 
the  members  of  the  invisible  Church  enjoy  with  Christ. 
Here  questions  of  many  kinds  crowd  upon  us,  clamoring  for 
answers,  to  many  of  which  no  answers  can  be  given :  God 
has  not  revealed  them  to  us ;  and  reason  and  experience  can 
give  no  help.  Eye  hath  not  seen,  nor  ear  heard,  neither  have 
entered  into  the  heart  of  man,  the  things  which  God  hath 
prepared  for  them  that  love  him. 


350 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Still  it  has  pleased  our  gracious  Lord  to  make  known  to 
us  much.  Here  we  have  been  struggling  to  become  per- 
fectly free  from  sin,  conformed  to  the  image  of  Christ; — 
in  response  to  this  longing,  we  are  told  that,  while  it  doth 
not  yet  appear  what  we  shall  be,  there  we  shall  be  like  him, 
for  we  shall  see  him  as  he  is.  Is  not  this  happiness  enough : 
that  we  shall  see  his  face,  shall  be  evermore  in  the  presence 
of  the  Lord,  and  shall  be  like  him — at  last  perfect  in  holi- 
ness? The  gates  of  death,  which  we  once  regarded  with 
terror,  have  become  gates  of  glory,  and  have  admitted  us, 
freed  from  the  burden  of  sin,  to  gaze,  filled  with  love  and 
gratitude,  into  the  face  of  the  King  on  his  throne,  the  Lamb 
who  was  slain,  and  who  by  his  blood  redeemed  us  to  God. 
God  himself  shall  wipe  away  all  tears  from  our  eyes ;  there 
shall  be  no  more  death;  no  hunger  or  thirst;  neither  sor- 
row, nor  crying ;  neither  shall  there  be  any  more  pain ;  for 
all  these  things  are  passed  away. 

Everything  that  affords  us  most  happiness  here  will  be 
ours  there,  or  will  be  replaced  by  something  infinitely  bet- 
ter. As  our  highest  honor  and  happiness  here  is  to  serve 
God  and  to  be  co-workers  with  him,  this  will  not  be  taken 
from  us,  however  it  may  be  changed.  As  continuous  de- 
light has  been  within  our  reach  here  in  the  pursuit  of  the 
true,  the  beautiful,  and  the  good,  we  shall  not  be  shut  off 
from  this  avenue  of  delight,  but  our  powers  of  knowing,  and 
loving,  and  serving,  will  reach  higher  and  higher  stages  of 
development  through  eternity.  The  home  of  the  Bride,  the 
Lamb's  Wife,  will  be  no  Nirvana,  it  will  not  be  a  prison 
where  we  shall  be  condemned  to  everlasting  idleness. 

We  often  hear  the  expression,  "Too  good  to  be  true"; 
but  here  are  blessings  and  honors  promised  infinitely  above 
all  we  could  dare  to  hope  for :  we  shall  inherit  all  things ; 
God  will  be  our  God,  and  we  his  sons ;  we  shall  be  called  to 
the  marriage  supper  of  the  Lamb ;  and — inconceivable 
thought — to  him  that  overcometh  will  be  granted  to  sit  with 
him  in  his  throne,  even  as  he  also  overcame  and  is  set  down 
with  his  Father  in  his  throne. 

Then,  in  the  immediate  presence  of  God  and  the  Lamb, 
shall  we  see  and  spend  a  blessed  eternity  with  the  great 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


351 


multitude,  which  no  man  can  number,  of  all  nations,  and 
kindreds,  and  people,  and  tongues ;  with  the  apostles,  and 
martyrs ;  renewing,  too,  our  companionship  with  those  we 
knew  and  loved  on  earth. 

And  we  shall  unite  with  them  in  crying,  "Holy,  holy, 
holy,  Lord  God  Almighty,  which  was,  and  is,  and  is  to 
come.  Thou  art  worthy,  O  Lord,  to  receive  glory,  and 
honor,  and  power;  for  thou  hast  created  all  things,  and 
for  thy  pleasure  they  are  and  were  created.  Blessing,  and 
honor,  and  glory,  and  power,  be  unto  him  that  sitteth  upon 
the  throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb  for  ever  and  ever." 

So  shall  we  ever  be  with  the  Lord. 

And  when  I'm  to  die, 

Receive  me,  I'll  cry, 
For  Jesus  has  loved  me,  I  cannot  tell  why; 

But  this  I  can  find: 

We  two  are  so  joined, 
He'll  not  be  in  glory  and  leave  me  behind. 


352 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


The  WorK  of  the  Church. 


Opening  Sermon  Before  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  at 
Cheraw,  October,  1903. 


And  Jesus  came  unto  them,  saying,  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in 
heaven  and  in  earth.  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost; 
teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you; 
and,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world. 

I  have  set  watchmen  upon  thy  walls,  O  Jerusalem,  which  shall  never 
hold  their  peace  day  nor  night;  ye  that  make  mention  of  the  Lord,  keep 
not  silence,  and  give  him  no  rest,  till  he  establish,  and  till  he  make 
Jerusalem  a  praise  in  the  earth. 

Stand  in  the  court  of  the  Lord's  house,  and  speak  unto  all  the  cities 
of  Judah,  which  come  to  worship  in  the  Lord's  house,  all  the  words  that 
I  command  thee  to  speak  unto  them;  diminish  not  a  word. 

Having  then  gifts  differing  according  to  the  grace  that  is  given  to  us, 
whether  prophecy,  let  us  prophesy  according  to  the  proportion  of  faith; 
or  ministry,  let  us  wait  on  our  ministering;  or  he  that  teacheth,  on 
teaching;  or  he  that  exhorteth,  on  exhortation;  he  that  giveth,  let  him 
do  it  with  simplicity;  he  that  ruleth,  with  diligence;  he  that  showeth 
mercy,  with  cheerfulness. 

If  thou  put  the  brethren  in  remembrance  of  these  things,  thou  shalt 
be  a  good  minister  of  Jesus  Christ,  nourished  up  in  the  words  of  faith 
and  of  good  doctrine,  whereunto  thou  hast  attained.  But  refuse  profane 
and  old  wives'  fables,  and  exercise  thyself  rather  unto  godliness.  Be 
thou  an  example  of  the  believers,  in  word,  in  conduct,  in  charity,  in 
spirit,  in  faith,  in  purity.  Till  I  come,  give  attendance  to  reading,  to 
exhortation,  to  doctrine. 

0  man  of  God,  flee  these  things;  and  follow  after  righteousness,  godli- 
ness, faith,  love,  patience,  meekness.  I  give  thee  charge  in  the  sight  of 
God,  who  quickeneth  all  things,  and  before  Christ  Jesus,  who  before 
Pontius  Pilate  witnessed  a  good  confession,  that  thou  keep  this  command- 
ment without  spot,  unrebukeable,  until  the  appearing  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  O  Timothy,  keep  that  which  is  committed  to  thy  trust,  avoiding 
profane  and  vain  babblings,  and  oppositions  of  science  falsely  so  called, 
which  some  professing  have  erred  concerning  the  faith. 

1  charge  thee  therefore  before  God  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who 
shall  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead  at  his  appearing  and  his  kingdom: 
Preach  the  word;  be  instant  in  season,  out  of  season;  reprove,  rebuke, 
exhort  with  all  long-suffering  and  doctrine.  Watch  thou  in  all  things, 
endure  afflictions,  do  the  work  of  an  evangelist,  make  full  proof  of  thy 
ministry. 


HIS  TEACHINGS.  353 

A  year  ago,  we  sadly  missed  from  our  synodical  meet- 
ing one  of  our  best  beloved  brethren ;  and  as  we  eagerly 
asked  each  other  concerning  his  health  and  strength,  we 
feared  that  we  might  not  again  have  the  delight  of  wel- 
coming him  to  our  annual  assemblies.  And  so  it  was. 
Within  a  few  weeks  the  news  reached  us  that  our  gentle, 
faithful,  godly  friend  and  brother,  Gilbert  R.  Brackett,  we 
should  see  on  earth  no  more.  Our  gracious  Lord  had 
taken  him  to  enter  into  his  rest  in  the  presence  of  his 
Redeemer.  But  he  did  not  deprive  us  of  his  faithful  labors 
in  our  blessed  work  until  he  had  permitted  him  to  be  with 
us  for  more  than  forty  years — a  length  of  service  which, 
when  he  was  my  pupil  and  I  knew  so  well  his  frail  frame, 
I  did  not  dare  to  hope  for.  Thank  God  for  having  lent  him 
to  us  so  long ! 

We  have  now  come  together  as  a  Synod  to  review  our 
work  during  the  year  just  closed,  to  inquire  to  what  extent 
we  have  acted  in  accordance  with  our  commission,  "Go  and 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  teaching  them  to 
observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you," 
sustained  by  the  gracious  promise,  "Lo,  I  am  with  you 
alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  We  enter  on  this 
review  and  self-examination  that  we  may  see  and  avoid 
our  past  errors  and  short-comings,  and  in  right  directions 
increase  our  efforts  to  promote  the  prosperity  of  our  Lord's 
kingdom.  I  do  not  hope  to  set  before  you  anything  new — 
anything  you  do  not  know  well  already.  But  it  is  often 
profitable  to  us  to  refresh  our  memories  as  to  the  most 
elementary  truths,  testing  by  them  our  lives  and  actions. 
You  made  it  my  duty  to  address  you  on  a  similar  occasion 
a  year  ago,  and  I  then  spoke  of  the  nature  of  the  Church; 
I  now  wish  to  speak  of  the  work  of  the  Church.  Then,  what 
the  Church  is;  now,  what  it  is  to  do. 

This  work  is  the  highest  and  most  glorious  of  which  we 
can  conceive:  as  Christ's  instruments  to  rescue  our  fellow- 
men  from  eternal  death  and  to  bring  to  them  everlasting 
life;  to  bring  them  from  the  depths  of  pollution,  sin,  and 
misery  to  spotless  purity,  holiness,  and  happiness ;  to  lead 
23— w 


354 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


from  the  paths  that  lead  to  hell  to  the  way  that  conducts 
us  to  unspeakable  bliss  in  heaven  at  the  right  hand  of  God. 
Jesus  Christ  has  finished  his  work  on  earth ;  but  he  is  send- 
ing us  to  carry  on  his  work,  to  be  his  ambassadors,  to  be 
co-workers  together  with  him.  To  use  such  language  might 
well  seem  blasphemous,  but  for  the  fact  that  our  Lord  him- 
self has  put  it  in  our  mouths.  Seeing  that  he  has  put  such 
honor  on  us,  what  manner  of  persons  ought  we  to  be ! 

The  work  intrusted  to  us  is  to  teach,  to  make  disciples 
of  all  nations;  not  to  teach  everything,  but  to  teach  what- 
soever the  Lord  has  commanded  us ;  in  brief,  to  preach  the 
word.    This,  and  this  alone  is  our  work. 

But  we  are  to  observe  that  under  this  command  is 
included  everything  that  is  necessary  to  the  accomplish- 
ment of  the  thing  specifically  enjoined.  Amongst  these 
necessary  duties  is  the  guarding  and  guiding,  ruling,  those 
whom  the  Holy  Spirit  leads  to  accept  the  preached  word — 
a  work  specially  committed  to  ruling  elders,  including  min- 
isters of  the  word,  who  are  also  ruling  elders. 

In  order  to  preach  the  word,  to  which  our  teaching  is  to 
be  rigidly  confined,  we  must  first  know  what  it  is,  and 
what  it  contains.  To  us  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  the 
sixty-six  books  forming  what  we  call  the  Holy  Bible,  are 
that  word;  revealed  to  us  at  various  times  through  numer- 
ous inspired  men.  God's  word,  every  sentence  absolutely 
true  in  the  sense  intended,  without  shadow  of  error. 

It  may  be  taken  for  granted  without  hesitation  that  every 
Presbyterian  minister  and  ruling  elder  would  firmly  main- 
tain that  "The  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments are  the  word  of  God,  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  obe- 
dience." If  any  one  of  us  has  the  faintest  doubt  on  this 
point,  he  should  lose  no  time  in  giving  up  his  office,  to 
which  he  certainly  has  no  right. 

In  addition  to  this,  numerous  other  books  are  thrust  upon 
us,  profanely  claiming  to  be  Bibles, — some  claiming  to  be 
revelations  from  God  directly,  others  revelations  through 
God-given  reason.  Amongst  these  are  the  Koran,  the 
Sacred  Book  of  the  Mohammedan,  the  Sacred  Books  of  the 
Hindoo,  the  Persian,  and  other  Orientals.    Other  writings 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


355 


for  which  equal  authority  with  our  Scriptures  is  claimed 
are  traditions  of  Ancient  Councils,  Papal  Bulls,  and  some 
we  hear  of  in  treatises  on  comparative  religion  or  in  Par- 
liaments of  religion;  and  further,  the  remnants  and  frag- 
ments left  of  our  Bible  after  it  has  been  freed  from  what  are 
condemned  as  false  teachings  and  errors  of  every  kind  by 
persons  who  profess  to  be  able  to  distinguish  by  reason 
between  the  parts  which  are  true  and  those  which  are 
false. 

We  are  probably  in  little  danger  of  being  misled  by  any  of 
these  claims,  though  some  are  very  subtle  and  may  be 
very  plausible,  put  forth  in  the  name  of  the  highest  scholar- 
ship and  of  devout  zeal  for  the  truth.  It  may  be  desirable 
for  our  own  instruction  to  give  some  attention  to  these 
subjects;  but  it  is  certainly  unwise  to  waste  the  time  of  our 
hearers  with  discussions  of  them,  if  not  dangerous  on 
account  of  filling  their  minds  with  doubts  and  difficulties 
which  we  cannot  profitably  take  enough  of  their  time  to 
remove.  All  critical  efforts  to  free  the  word  from  errors 
which  may  have  crept  in  through  the  inaccuracy  of  copyists 
or  otherwise,  so  as  to  secure  a  perfectly  pure  text,  should 
be  heartily  welcomed.  To  such  efforts  no  blame  should  be 
attached.  But  sitting  in  judgment  on  what  God  has  spoken, 
is  another  matter. 

Delivering  addresses  on  these  topics  is  plainly  not  preach- 
ing the  word.  And  we  have  no  right  to  teach  in  God's  name 
what  he  hath  not  spoken.  But  even  when  we  confine  our- 
selves to  things  spoken  of  in  the  Bible,  we  may  easily 
spend  our  time  on  subjects  which  have  little  or  no  bearing 
on  the  great  object  we  should  always  have  in  view.  Is  it 
not  wasting  our  time,  or  worse,  to  teach  much  about  Bible 
geography  or  astronomy  or  natural  history  or  psychology, 
or  anything  else  that  does  not  help  our  hearers  to  under- 
stand the  gospel?  Many  such  topics  may  be  very  interest- 
ing and  may  deserve  study  and  investigation;  but  surely 
they  form  no  part  of  the  teaching  of  the  way  of  salvation, 
or  what  man  is  to  believe  concerning  God,  and  what  duty 
God  requires  of  man. 


356 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


But  further,  it  is  not  enough  even  to  confine  ourselves  to 
the  preaching  of  the  word,  and  to  such  parts  of  what  we 
there  find  as  will  make  wise  unto  salvation,  as  will  build  up 
in  holiness  and  comfort  through  faith  unto  salvation;  but 
this  preaching  must  be  so  done  that  what  is  said  can  be 
understood.  This  is  essential.  We  have  heard  a  great  deal 
said  in  condemnation  of  doctrinal  preaching;  and  this  con- 
demnation is  just,  and  should  be  heeded,  when  the  thing 
condemned  is,  not  the  declaring  the  truths  set  forth  in  the 
word,  but  the  declaring  them  in  unknown  tongues,  in  theo- 
logical and  philosophical  language,  which  the  hearers  do 
not  and  ought  not  to  be  expected  to  understand.  Such 
preaching  is  not  preaching  at  all;  it  does  not  conform  in 
the  least  to  the  inspired  definition  of  preaching  given  by 
Nehemiah  in  his  description  of  the  meetings  held  by  the 
people  of  Israel,  who  had  returned  from  Captivity.  After 
the  wall  of  the  city  had  been  built,  the  people  gathered 
themselves  together  as  one  man  to  listen  to  Ezra  the  scribe 
as  he  read  in  the  book  of  the  law  from  morning  until  midday 
before  the  men  and  the  women  and  those  who  could  under- 
stand. Ezra  and  his  associates  caused  the  people  to  under- 
stand the  law;  they  read  in  the  "book  of  the  law  distinctly, 
and  gave  the  sense,  so  that  they  understood  the  reading." 

This  tells  us  what  we  are  to  teach  in  our  preaching,  and  all 
that  we  may  preach.  The  outcry  against  doctrinal  and  for 
practical  preaching  would  no  longer  be  heard,  or  at  least 
would  have  no  right  to  be  uttered,  if  the  doctrine  were 
presented  in  such  language  as  could  be  understood.  On 
the  contrary,  the  people  would  go  away,  as  they  did  from 
the  camp-meetings  conducted  by  Ezra,  mourning  and  weep- 
ing indeed  on  account  of  their  violations  of  the  law,  but 
also  with  great  delight  because  they  had  understood  the 
words  that  were  declared  unto  them.  Then  the  doctrinal 
and  the  practical  went  hand  in  hand,  and  so  they  always 
should.  The  doctrinal  should  always  show  the  reasons 
involved  in  the  practical,  and  the  practical  should  always 
be  based  on  the  doctrinal. 

The  evil  now  mentioned  is  not  imaginary,  even  amongst 
ourselves  perhaps;  for  much  of  the  language  in  which  we 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


357 


think  is  certain  to  be  technical,  and  properly  so;  and  we 
naturally  are  inclined  unconsciously  to  use  the  same  lan- 
guage when  we  speak,  not  remembering  that  this  language 
is  an  unknown  tongue  to  our  hearers.  But  if  we  do  not 
resist  and  overcome  this  tendency,  great  harm  must  come 
to  those  we  would  help.  We  surely  would  not  be  influenced 
by  a  desire  to  seem  eloquent,  to  preach  with  enticing  words 
of  man's  wisdom,  so  that  we  might  win  praise;  we  had 
rather  speak  five  words  with  the  understanding  that  we 
might  teach  others  also,  than  ten  thousand  words  in  an 
unknown  tongue.  Let  us  then  in  our  preaching  strive  to 
preach  God's  word  so  as  to  be  understood,  and  God's  word 
alone;  and  not  be  guilty  of  what  we  often  hear  of  some 
preachers  doing,  delivering  moral  essays,  or  indulging  in 
vain  speculations  concerning  things  of  which  nothing  can 
be  known,  and  that  would  do  no  good  if  it  could. 

Such  preaching  as  has  just  been  described  is  not  only 
the  most  scriptural,  and  therefore  the  best,  but  it  is  the 
most  attractive  to  the  multitudes.  The  houses  in  which 
John  Hall  and  Charles  Spurgeon  preached  the  pure  word, 
and  nothing  else,  in  simple  language,  easily  understood  by 
the  uneducated,  without  the  least  so-called  learning — really 
obscurity — these  houses  were  always  crowded  with  eager 
listeners. 

Before  speaking  of  other  duties  resting  upon  us  as  min- 
isters and  ruling  elders,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  notice  the 
different  forms  of  our  ordination  vows. 

1.  We  declare  our  belief  that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments — every  part  of  the  Bible — are  the  word 
of  God,  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  We 
make  no  exception;  we  may  make  no  addition  in  either 
faith  or  practice. 

2.  In  the  next  place,  we  profess  "sincerely  to  receive  and 
accept  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  this  Church,  as  containing 
the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures." 
Here  is  a  plain  distinction  between  our  belief  in  the  Scrip- 
tures as  infallible — true  in  every  word  and  sentence, — and 
our  receiving  and  adopting  the  Confession  of  Faith — not 
as  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Scriptures,  but  as 


358 


DR.  JAMES  W00DR0W. 


containing  that  system.  That  is  to  say,  while  sincerely  and 
honestly  accepting  the  Confession  of  Faith,  it  is  quite  con- 
sistent with  our  vow  to  believe  that  the  Confession  may 
contain  errors,  or  at  least  things  in  our  opinion  not  certainly 
true.  Hence  we  recognise  the  right  to  revise  it  and  to 
change  it,  if  we  find  errors  or  assertions  not  true  or  not 
proved.  Should  any  one  of  us  doubt  or  deny,  it  is  in  the 
province  of  the  Church  to  inquire  whether  such  doubt  is 
inconsistent  with  an  honest  acceptance  of  the  system  of  doc- 
trine taught ;  and  when  the  Church  utters  its  decision  in  due 
form,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  person  concerned  to  submit.  If 
he  cannot  conscientiously  do  this,  then  let  him  appeal 
directly  to  the  Head  of  the  Church,  the  Judge  over  all,  the 
Lord  of  the  conscience,  and  withdraw  from  the  Church's 
jurisdiction.  But  let  him  not  lay  claim  to  rights  and  privi- 
leges as  an  officer  in  the  Church,  when  the  condition  has 
been  broken  on  which  these  were  based. 

3.  In  the  third  place,  at  our  ordination,  we  do  not  say  that 
we  believe  that  the  government  and  discipline  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  are  taught  in  the  Bible,  or  even  that  the 
Presbyterian  system  is  contained  in  it;  we  simply  say  that 
we  approve  of  that  system.  For  my  own  part,  I  firmly 
believe  that  the  Presbyterian  system  of  government  is 
taught  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  and  that  I  am  bound  to  do 
all  in  my  power  to  carry  it  into  effect,  because  it  is  there 
taught.  But  at  the  same  time,  I  recognise  under  our  ordi- 
nation vows,  the  right  of  others  to  believe  that  no  system 
of  government  is  divinely  taught,  or  even  that  some  other 
system  may  have  had  the  divine  sanction  for  a  longer  or 
shorter  period;  and  in  my  opinion  those  so  believing,  who 
yet  declare  their  approval  of  the  Presbyterian  system,  have 
the  same  rights  to  office  in  our  Church  as  any  one.  We  pro- 
fess to  approve;  and  that  approval  may  be  based  on  our  con- 
viction that  it  has  been  permanently  established  by  the 
teachings  of  God's  word;  or  that  the  whole  system  is 
included  amongst  those  "circumstances  .  .  .  common  to 
human  actions  and  societies,  which  are  to  be  ordered  by  the 
light  of  nature  and  Christian  prudence,  according  to  the 
general  rules  of  the  word,  which  are  always  to  be  ob- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


359 


served."  But  whatever  the  basis  of  our  expressed  approval, 
our  ordination  vow  binds  us  to  perform  the  duties  which 
arise  under  it  as  faithfully  as  those  duties  which  result  from 
our  belief  in  the  infallibility  of  the  word  or  from  our  sin- 
cere reception  and  adoption  of  the  Confession  of  Faith.  But 
inasmuch  as  the  duties  in  connexion  with  government  and 
discipline  are  less  important  than  belief  in  the  absolute  truth 
of  God's  word  or  in  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the 
Confession,  it  would  not  be  surprising  to  find  that  there  is 
stronger  temptation  to  neglect  them  than  the  others.  Yet 
"he  that  is  faithful  in  that  which  is  least  is  faithful  also 
in  much;  and  he  that  is  unjust  in  the  least  is  also  unjust  in 
much." 

So  far  as  I  know,  all  our  ministers  believe  in  the  Bible — 
in  the  whole  of  it — and  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  Con- 
fession and  the  Catechisms,  and  act  accordingly.  But  have 
we  reason  to  believe  that  there  is  equal  fidelity  as  to  gov- 
ernment and  discipline?  We  affirm  that  the  word  of  God 
is  "to  be  preached  only  by  such  as  are  sufficiently  gifted,  and 
also  duly  approved  and  called  to  that  office."  (L.  C,  158.) 
And  it  is  made  the  duty  of  the  Presbytery —  a  council  of  the 
rulers  of  the  Church — to  find  out  by  thorough  examination 
whether  or  not  the  candidate  is  sufficiently  gifted.  Such 
examination,  besides  many  other  things,  requires  a  test  of 
the  ability  to  preach;  and  hence,  after  other  prescribed 
examinations,  the  council  gives  the  candidate  permission 
to  preach  as  a  probationer.  Those  who  have  received  this 
formal  Presbyterial  permission  and  authority,  and  those 
alone,  in  our  Church,  can  lawfully  preach.  Due  authority 
cannot  be  conferred  by  congregations,  or  by  presbyters 
severally;  it  must  be,  like  all  other  valid  presbyterial  action, 
joint,  and  not  several. 

Even  if  this  were  not  the  law  of  our  Church  of  which 
we  have  solemnly  declared  our  approval,  prudence  would 
dictate  this  course,  for  the  history  of  the  Church  in  all  ages 
shows  us  the  frightful  evils  resulting  from  allowing  untried 
men — ignorant  and  unlearned — to  assume  this  the  most 
important  function  of  the  Church.  We  have  a  sad  illustra- 
tion of  this  evil  that  comes  very  near  home.    About  a  cen- 


360 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


tury  ago,  in  another  State,  a  few  of  our  ministers,  under  the 
influence  of  the  best  motives,  feeling  deeply  the  need  of 
more  preachers,  and  unable  to  secure  those  who  had  the 
required  training,  withdrew  from  us,  and  thought  they 
were  supplying  the  need  by  admitting  to  the  ministry  men 
who  had  not  received  the  instruction  necessary  rightly  to 
know  or  to  enable  them  rightly  to  divide  the  word  of  truth. 
What  has  been  the  result?  As  we  doubtless  all  know,  in  the 
formation  of  a  Church  with  a  membership  nearly  as  large 
as  our  own,  which  has  departed  from  what  we  regard  as 
true  orthodoxy  much  farther  than  many  denominations 
which  are  not  even  called  Presbyterian.  And  such  must 
be — always  have  been — the  fruits  of  an  untrained  and 
untaught  ministry.  Now  how  far  does  unauthorised  preach- 
ing, by  untried,  unlicensed  persons,  prevail  in  our  Church? 
And  if  we  permit  it  and  encourage  it,  are  we  doing  right? 
If  our  laws  as  to  licensure  are  wrong,  let  us  seek,  in  an 
orderly  manner,  to  have  them  made  right.  But  until  so 
changed,  are  they  not  binding  on  us,  and  ought  we  not  to 
observe  them? 

A  few  years  ago  there  were  in  every  part  of  the  country 
many  persons  styling  themselves  evangelists,  who  were 
without  authority  from  any  organised  Church,  and  yet  were 
widely  received  and  encouraged  by  Presbyterians  as  well 
as  by  others.  This  class  seems  to  be  less  numerous  than 
formerly ;  but  still  some  exist.  But  the  violation  of  our  law 
continues  to  be  wide-spread.  We  see  that  some  Presby- 
teries do  not  hesitate  to  employ  unlicensed  candidates  to 
preach  throughout  their  churches,  and  vacant  congrega- 
tions often  seem  indifferent  as  to  whether  there  has  been 
licensure  or  not.  Then  further  there  are  affiliated  associa- 
tions which  doubtless  do  much  good  in  various  directions, 
but  are  not  wholly  free  from  a  disposition  to  raise  up  a 
class  of  religious  teachers  outside  the  Churches,  even  estab- 
lishing training  schools  and  the  like.  The  Bible  teaching 
of  such  persons  must  necessarily  be  defective ;  for,  being 
connected  as  individuals  with  denominations  widely  differ- 
ing in  their  views,  all  references  to  such  different  and  con- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


361 


tradictory  views  must  be  unbecoming,  and  thus  many  doc- 
trines of  very  great  importance  must  be  omitted. 

An  exhaustive  enumeration  of  deviations  from  our  form 
of  government  might  include  the  various  children's  socie- 
ties, in  which  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  children  are  encour- 
aged to  teach  and  to  guide  each  other  in  regard  to  the 
Sacred  Scriptures.  Serious  misconceptions  as  to  Christian 
belief  and  duty  are  almost  sure  to  arise,  and  hysterical 
excitement  substituted  for  the  quiet  consideration  of  these 
most  important  subjects,  in  which  they  should  be  carefully 
instructed  and  guided  by  capable  teachers. 

Another  matter  which  it  may  not  be  improper  to  men- 
tion in  connexion  with  church  government,,  is  the  forma- 
tion and  dissolution  of  the  pastoral  relation.  Our  law  gives 
full  and  explicit  directions  concerning  it.  It  prescribes  that 
no  minister  or  probationer  shall  receive  a  call  from  a 
church  but  by  the  permission  of  his  Presbytery.  The  call 
is  first  to  be  sent  to  this  body,  which  must  see  that  it  is  in 
order,  and  consider  whether  or  not  it  may  be  regarded  as 
for  the  good  of  the  church.  Then,  after  mature  considera- 
tion by  the  Presbytery,  for  the  first  time  may  the  call  reach 
the  person  to  whom  it  is  addressed.  Further  steps  may 
now  be  taken,  all  with  great  deliberation,  before  the  rela- 
tionship can  be  constituted.  How  does  this  correspond  to 
that  which,  I  will  not  say  usually,  but  certainly  frequently 
takes  place?  So,  in  connexion  with  the  dissolution  of  the 
pastoral  relation,  the  difference  between  the  law  and  the 
frequent  practice  is  still  greater,  if  possible.  Instead  of  ten- 
dering the  resignation  of  his  pastoral  charge  to  his  Presby- 
tery, the  pastor  hands  it  directly  to  the  church;  it  is 
accepted;  at  a  special  meeting  of  the  Presbytery,  which 
only  three  or  four  members  attend,  it  is  learned  that  all 
arrangements  have  already  been  made ;  and  whatever  their 
judgment  might  have  been  if  the  law  had  been  complied 
with  and  they  had  been  consulted  in  the  first  place,  they 
proceed  almost  of  necessity  to  go  through  the  form  of  con- 
firming what  has  already  been  virtually  accomplished.  The 
church  is  under  the  care  and  control  of  the  Presbytery; 
and  when  the  steps  prescribed  by  law  are  taken,  the  Pres- 


362 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


bytery  not  infrequently  refuses  to  sanction  the  proposed 
dissolution.  But  when  the  law  is  set  aside,  the  Presbytery 
often  feels  compelled  to  do  what  is  contrary  to  its  judg- 
ment. 

From  the  foregoing  it  is  seen  that  the  duties  of  teaching 
and  governing  are  the  chief  duties  which  rest  upon  the 
Church  in  its  organised  capacity.  But  in  performing  these 
duties,  we  are  not  required  or  even  permitted  to  teach 
everything  that  we  regard  as  true  and  good,  nor  are  we  to 
attempt  to  govern  by  laws  or  rules  of  our  own  devising, 
however  beneficial  we  may  expect  the  results  to  be.  There 
are  vast  bodies  of  truth  that  it  may  be  extremely  desirable 
to  know  ourselves  and  to  teach  others  to  know;  if  we 
ourselves  are  properly  instructed,  there  is  no  limit  to  the 
methods  of  improving  those  around  us  in  the  daily  conduct 
of  their  lives  in  every  direction,  increasing  the  material 
comfort  and  happiness  of  all.  But  these  things  as  a  Church 
we  have  no  right  to  undertake ;  we  are  strictly  limited  to 
preaching  the  gospel,  to  doing  whatever  is  necessary  to 
preach  it  most  efficiently  and  successfully.  What  may  be 
necessary  must  vary  with  surrounding  conditions.  The 
preacher  must  be  trained  and  taught;  if  necessary,  the 
Church  must  establish  schools  to  teach  everything  from  the 
humblest  elements  to  the  highest  departments  of  knowl- 
edge ;  it  may  build  houses,  it  may  make  type  and  paper  and 
print  books ;  it  may  construct  ships  and  navigate  them ;  and 
so  on  and  on ; — all  within  these  limits,  that  what  is  done  is 
done  for  the  purpose  of  more  effectively  preaching  the 
gospel.  Where  the  line  separating  these  church  duties 
from  secular  occupations  may  lie,  it  is  very  often  hard  to 
decide;  but  the  principle  stated  should  be  as  carefully 
applied  as  possible. 

In  seeking  the  path  of  duty  where  the  application  of  this 
principle  is  not  immediately  obvious,  we  obtain  light,  as  in 
all  other  things,  from  the  example  of  the  inspired  apostles, 
when  they  were  employed  in  giving  form  to  the  Church. 
From  this  example  we  see  plainly  that  to  the  Church  is 
intrusted  the  care  of  the  poor,  the  sick,  the  widow,  the 
orphan,  all  who  in  any  way  are  distressed  in  mind,  body, 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


363 


or  estate.  Such  care  is  to  be  exercised  not  merely  in  behalf 
of  those  of  our  neighbors  who  live  around  us,  but  all  we 
can  reach  everywhere ;  in  behalf  of  all  whom  our  Lord 
taught  us  to  regard  as  our  neighbors,  that  is,  all  who  need 
our  help, — as  far  as  from  Macedonia  and  Greece  to  Jerusa- 
lem ; — if  need  be,  employing  the  highest  ministers  in  the 
Church  as  our  collecting  and  distributing  agents.  The 
ministration  not  only  supplieth  the  want  of  the  saints,  but 
is  abundant  also  by  many  thanksgivings  unto  God, — they 
glorify  God  for  professed  subjection  to  the  gospel  of  Christ, 
and  for  liberal  distribution  unto  them ;  which,  however,  is 
not  to  be  confined  to  them,  but  is  to  extend  unto  all  men. 

Should  the  Church  awake  to  the  duties  here  set  forth 
and  faithfully  perform  them,  all  outside  voluntary  benevo- 
lent associations  of  every  kind  would  necessarily  cease  to 
exist  from  want  of  employment.  But  when  our  Lord  told 
his  disciples  how  the  man  who  had  been  left  half  dead  by 
thieves  had  been  treated  with  cold  indifference  and  neglect 
by  the  Church  as  represented  by  its  officers,  the  priest  and 
the  Levite,  and  how  an  outsider,  even  a  Samaritan,  who  had 
no  dealings  with  church  people,  had  compassion  on  him, 
and  did  everything  to  restore  him  that  the  Church  should 
have  done,  he  uttered  no  word  of  disapproval  of  this  intru- 
sion into  the  Church's  province.  And  God  forbid  that  I 
should  do  so !  Nevertheless,  if  the  Church,  in  the  person 
of  the  priest  or  Levite,  had  done  her  duty,  nothing  would 
have  been  left  for  the  Samaritan  to  do. 

Benevolent  associations,  lodges,  orders,  do  a  work  that 
can  hardly  be  estimated  in  taking  care  of  the  sick,  providing 
for  the  widow  and  the  orphan,  relieving  distress  in  every 
way.  All  praise  be  to  them  for  so  doing!  It  is  not  going 
beyond  the  truth  to  say  that  in  these  things  they  far  surpass 
the  Church.  This  we  must  confess  with  shame  and  con- 
fusion of  face.  Should  the  Church  do  its  duty  and  enjoy  its 
privilege  in  these  works,  there  would  be  nothing  left  for 
these  benevolent  organisations  to  do.  But  it  does  not.  All 
honor  and  praise  be  to  those  who  do  devote  themselves  to 
such  worthy  and  noble  labors  of  love !  If  that  part  of  the 
Church  which  is  under  our  management  and  control  is 


364 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


justly  open  to  reproach,  how  eager  should  we  be  at  once  to 
free  ourselves  from  it! 

I  have  now  attempted  as  briefly  as  possible  to  suggest 
some  parts  of  the  Church's  work,  to  which  it  may  be  profit- 
able to  us  to  give  special  thought,  and  even  to  cause  self- 
examination. 

As  we  have  seen,  this  work  is  all  described  in  the  single 
expression,  "Preach  the  gospel."  Every  part  of  it  is 
included  in  that  commandment.  To  what  end?  That  all 
men  may  be  brought  to  know  Christ  Jesus  and  him  cruci- 
fied, to  believe  on  him,  love  him,  do  his  commandments. 

It  is  to  this  glorious  work  that  we  are  called.  Armed 
with  the  sword  of  the  Spirit,  even  the  word  of  God,  and 
relying  on  the  strength  which  he  gives  us,  we  go  forth  as 
part  of  the  army  to  conquer  the  world  for  our  King  Jesus. 
It  is  to  this  that  in  this  Synod  our  hundred  ministers,  our 
two  thousand  ruling  elders  and  deacons,  our  twenty  thou- 
sand communicants,  who  have  sat  at  the  table  of  our  Lord, 
— it  is  to  this  that  we  have  devoted  ourselves  soul  and  body, 
all  we  are  and  all  we  have,  each  in  the  special  position  to 
which  we  may  be  called.  What  might  we  not  hope  for, 
if  within  this  Synod  each  of  these  twenty  thousand  should 
be  animated  by  flaming  zeal  for  God,  should  in  heart,  in  pri- 
vate life  and  public,  in  all  his  speaking,  and  living,  and 
acting,  be  seen  denying  ungodliness  and  worldly  lusts,  liv- 
ing soberly,  righteously,  godly,  looking  for  the  blessed  hope, 
and  the  glorious  appearing  of  the  great  God  and  our  Saviour 
Jesus  Christ,  who  gave  himself  for  us,  that  he  might  redeem 
us  from  all  iniquity,  and  purify  unto  himself  a  peculiar  peo- 
ple, zealous  of  good  works.  Each  blameless  and  harmless, 
each  a  son  of  God,  without  rebuke  in  the  midst  of  a  crooked 
and  perverse  generation,  among  whom  each  shines  as  a 
light  in  the  world,  holding  forth  the  word  of  life. — To  this 
each  one  of  us  and  of  the  people  under  our  care  is  called. 


What  Shall  the  Answer  Be? 


HIS  TEACHINGS 


365 


Inaugural  Address. 


Fathers  and  Brethren  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Theo- 
logical Seminary: 
On  entering  formally  upon  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of 
the  office  into  which  I  have  just  been  inducted,  I  beg  leave 
to  express  the  deep  feeling  of  responsibility  which  oppresses 
me,  and  of  self-distrust,  which  would  have  prevented  my 
listening  to  the  call  to  it,  had  I  believed  that  I  was  free  to 
decide  in  accordance  with  my  own  opinion  of  my  fitness. 
But  without  obtruding  upon  you  an  account  of  the  many 
reasons  which  would  have  induced  me  to  refuse  it,  cluster- 
ing more  or  less  closely  around  the  one  already  presented, 
permit  me  to  say  that  I  did  not  dare  to  yield  to  them, 
because  the  Synod  of  Georgia,  in  appointing  me  to  this 
office,  did  not  act  so  hastily  that  I  might  have  regarded 
their  appointment  as  the  result  of  accident.  And  hence, 
although  I  cannot  shake  oft  the  anxious  fear  that  they  may 
have  been  mistaken  in  the  estimate  which  led  them  to 
make  the  choice,  I  may  not  do  otherwise  than  obey,  and  go 
forward  in  the  path  which  has  been  set  before  me,  trusting 
in  the  judgment  of  the  church  court  which  called  me,  rather 
than  in  my  own :  and  above  all.  relying  for  wisdom  and 
understanding  upon  the  Infinite  Source  of  light  and  knowl- 
edge. 

The  oppressive  feeling  of  responsibility  is  greatly 
increased  by  the  fact  that  I  have  been  called,  not  to  dis- 
charge the  duties  of  an  office  already  well  known,  in  which 
the  experience  of  many  predecessors  affords  guidance,  but 
to  organise  an  entirely  new  department  of  instruction,  with- 
out a  single  similar  chair  in  any  theological  school,  either  in 
America  or  Europe,  to  serve  as  a  model.*  There  is,  it  is 
true,  a  chair  of  Natural  Science  in  the  Xew  (Theologi- 
cal) College  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  at  Edin- 
burgh,  but  it  is   so  different   in   its   design   from  that 

*Since  the  above  was  written  (in  1861)  a  considerable  number  of 
Professorships  and  Lectureships,  of  the  same  character  with  the  Perkins 
Professorship,  have  been  established  in  Theological  Seminaries  on  both 
sides  of  the  Atlantic. 


366 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


which  you  have  established,  that  it  forms  no  exception. 
''The  peculiar  business  of  its  course  consists  in  an  illustra- 
tion of  the  three  following  branches,  into  which  natural 
science  may  be  divided:  I.  Synthology;  II.  Biology;  III. 
Geology."  And  it  is  regarded  as  merely  "destined  to  em- 
brace a  practical  course  of  natural  theology."*  The  task 
assigned  me  is  all  the  more  difficult  on  account  of  the 
various  and  even  conflicting  views  which  prevail  respecting 
its  nature,  and  the  brief  and  somewhat  indefinite  instruc- 
tions given  in  the  resolutions  of  the  Synod  of  South  Caro- 
lina, Georgia,  and  Alabama,  by  which  the  chair  was  estab- 
lished. For  these  reasons,  I  wish  to  avail  myself  of  this 
opportunity  to  present  to  you  my  own  views  as  to  what 
you  have  given  me  to  do,  and  the  mode  and  spirit  in  which 
it  is  to  be  done,  in  order  that,  if  I  have  not  mistaken  your 
design,  I  may  go  forward  the  more  confidently;  and  if  I 
have  misapprehended  it,  that  I  may  have  the  benefit  of  your 
counsels  and  your  instructions  in  changing,  restricting,  or 
extending  my  plans. 

The  need  of  some  means  of  giving  to  our  theological  stu- 
dents a  more  thorough  acquaintance  with  natural  science, 
as  far  as  it  has  any  real  or  imaginary  connexion  with  reve- 
lation, has  long  been  felt ;  for  it  has  been  evident,  especially 
during  the  last  fifty  years,  that  disbelief  in  the  word  of 
God  has  been  relying  for  its  support  and  its  justification, 
before  the  reasoning  world,  more  and  more  upon  the  several 
branches  of  natural  science.  The  arguments  brought  for- 
ward in  defence  of  the  truth,  have  often  been  characterised 
by  such  ignorance  of  the  actual  nature  and  force  of  the 
objections  urged  against  it,  that  they  have,  not  infrequently, 
been  injurious  to  the  cause  defended,  and  promotive  of  the 
skepticism  attacked.  This  has  always  been  the  case  to  a 
painful  extent,  as  well  as  at  present,  when  perverted  science 
furnishes  infidelity  with  so  large  a  proportion  of  its  weap- 
ons. The  most  excellent  works  of  many  divines,  in  every 
age  and  every  branch  of  the  Church,  have  too  often  been 
marred  by  ineptitudes  and  fanciful  absurdities,  whenever 
they  have  touched  the  material  works  of  God.    But  it  has 

*  Introductory  Lecture:  By  John  Fleming,  D.  D. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


367 


only  comparatively  recently  become  important  that  the  con- 
nexion between  the  works  and  the  word  of  God  should  be 
made  the  subject  of  special  study  in  a  theological  course. 
It  has  become  so  now,  by  the  increased  number  of  points  of 
supposed  contact,  and  the  wide  prevalence  of  the  opinion, 
in  almost  every  community,  and  among  all  classes  of  peo- 
ple, that  the  relation  subsisting  is  that  of  antagonism.  Our 
ministers  have  by  no  means  been  behind  the  age  in  this 
field  of  knowledge,  as  has  often  been  tauntingly  said;  but 
they  have  not  all  been  sufficiently  in  advance  of  it.  Here, 
as  in  everything  else  which  will  fit  them  to  understand 
fully  the  word  which  they  preach,  to  refute  the  sophisms  of 
unbelievers,  and  to  remove  the  doubts  of  those  whose  faith 
has  been  shaken,  they  should  be,  if  possible,  far  beyond 
those  whom  they  would  teach. 

It  has  been  perceived,  by  all  who  can  appreciate  the 
amount  of  study  and  investigation  involved,  that  the  dis- 
cussion of  these  topics  embraces  too  wide  a  range  to  suffer 
it  to  be  attached,  without  great  detriment,  to  existing 
departments  of  instruction.  It  has  been  wisely  thought  that 
it  would  be  better  to  leave  it  untouched,  than  to  place  it 
where  it  could  not  receive  proper  attention  from  either 
instructor  or  instructed ;  for  it  has  been  chiefly  imperfect, 
one-sided  views  that  have  given  rise  to  the  wide-spread 
belief  that  there  is  antagonism.  It  would  only  have  aggra- 
vated the  evil  to  have  intrusted  the  new  department  to  any 
one  who  was  already  fully  occupied,  as  each  professor 
should  be,  with  the  appropriate  duties  of  his  own  chair. 

The  first  step  in  our  church  courts,  looking  to  the  sup- 
ply of  the  want  so  generally  felt,  which  led  to  any  definite 
result,  was  taken  by  the  Presbytery  of  Tombeckbee,  in  the 
autumn  of  1857;  when  the  following  preamble  and  resolu- 
tions, introduced  and  warmly  supported  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 
James  A.  Lyon,  of  Columbus,  Mississippi — to  whom  this 
chair  owes  so  much,  from  its  inception  to  its  final  establish- 
ment— and  as  warmly  supported  by  the  Rev.  Richard  S. 
Gladney,  of  Aberdeen,  were  unanimously  adopted,  viz. : 

"Whereas,  We  live  in  an  age  in  which  the  most  insidious 
attacks  are  made  upon  revealed  religion  through  the  natural 


368 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


sciences;  and  as  it  behooves  the  Church,  at  all  times,  to 
have  men  capable  of  defending  the  faith  once  delivered  to 
the  saints,  therefore, 

"Resolved,  That  this  Presbytery  recommend  the  endow- 
ment of  a  professorship  of  the  natural  sciences  as  connected 
with  revealed  religion,  in  one  or  more  of  our  theological 
seminaries,  and  would  cheerfully  recommend  our  churches 
to  contribute  their  full  proportion  of  funds  for  said  endow- 
ment. 

"Resolved,  That  the  same  be  brought  before  our  Synod 
(of  Mississippi)  at  its  next  meeting  for  consideration."* 

The  Synod  of  Mississippi  subsequently,  at  its  meeting  in 
1858,  unanimously  approved  this  proceeding  of  the  Presby- 
tery, and  "cordially  recommended  the  same  to  the  consid- 
eration of  the  next  General  Assembly." 

In  the  meantime,  the  attention  of  the  Hon.  Judge  John 
Perkins  of  "The  Oaks,"  near  Columbus,  Mississippi,  was 
directed  to  the  subject,  by  frequent  conversations  with  his 
friend  and  pastor,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Lyon.  Already  fully  con- 
vinced of  its  importance,  his  purpose  to  cooperate  must  have 
been  strengthened  by  the  illustration  before  him,  in  the 
neighboring  city  of  Columbus,  of  the  use  made  of  the  natu- 
ral sciences  by  skeptics,  and  of  the  great  value  of  a  studied 
acquaintance  with  these  sciences,  and  their  true  relations 
to  revealed  religion,  as  evinced  in  the  triumph  of  his  pas- 
tor over  all  unbelieving  assaults.  Judge  Perkins  had  pre- 
viously determined  to  consecrate  a  princely  sum  to  the  pur- 
poses of  theological  education ;  and  now  his  resolution  was 
taken  to  devote  a  portion  of  it  to  the  establishment  of  the 
proposed  professorship.  He  munificently  offered,  first,  the 
sum  of  thirty  thousand  dollars  for  its  endowment  in  the 
Theological  Seminary  at  Columbia;  and  subsequently  sup- 
plemented this  amount  with  ten  thousand  dollars  more,  that 
the  chair  might  be  amply  and  generously  sustained.  The 
Board  of  Directors  most  gladly  accepted  the  princely  offer  ; 
and,  on  the  15th  of  January,  1859,  the  arrangements  respect- 
ing the  donation  were  consummated ;  the  Seminary  having 
been  aided  here,  too,  by  the  invaluable  services  of  the  same 

*Southern  Presbyterian  Review,  Vol.  XII.,  p.  182. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


369 


sterling  friend  to  whom  it  had  been  so  deeply  indebted  at 
every  other  step. 

The  written  instrument  of  gift,  of  the  above  date,  con- 
veying the  sum  of  fifty  thousand  dollars  to  the  Seminary  of 
which  twenty  thousand  dollars  was  for  other  purposes, 
"Witnesseth,  That  whereas  the  said  John  Perkins  is  anxious 
and  desirous  of  making  an  investment  of  funds  during  his 
life,  which  will  be  a  permanent  source  of  good  to  his  fellow- 
creatures  after  his  death:  and  whereas  he  is  fully  satisfied 
that  the  greatest  good  in  his  power  to  bestow  upon  his 
fellow-men  may  be  effected  by  and  through  the  Board  of 
Directors  above  mentioned,  in  the  manner,  way,  and  under 
the  restrictions  hereinafter  mentioned  and  stated :  Now,  for 
and  in  consideration  of  the  premises,  the  said  John  Perkins, 
hath  given,  granted,  and  donated,  and  doth  by  these  pres- 
ents give,  grant,  and  donate,  unto  the  said  Board  of  Direc- 
tors, and  their  successors  in  office,  the  sum  of  fifty  thousand 
dollars;"  *  *  *  *  "under  the  following  conditions,  purposes, 
objects,  plans,  restrictions,  and  stipulations;  that  is  to  say: 
First,  as  we  live  in  an  age  in  which  the  most  insidious 
attacks  are  made  upon  revealed  religion  through  the  natural 
sciences ;  and  as  it  becomes  the  Church,  at  all  times,  to  have 
men  capable  of  defending  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the 
Church,  it  is  the  object  and  design  of  the  said  John  Perkins, 
and  it  is  hereby  ordered  and  directed,  and  made,  by  these 
presents,  one  of  the  conditions,  restrictions,  and  stipulations 
of  said  gift,  that  thirty  thousand  dollars  of  the  same  shall 
be  vested,  as  a  permanent  fund,  for  the  endowment  of  a 
professorship  in  said  Theological  Seminary,  of  the  Natural 
Sciences  as  connected  with  Revealed  Religion."*  In  Octo- 
ber, November,  and  December,  of  the  same  year  (1859),  the 
Synods  of  South  Carolina,  Alabama,  and  Georgia,  in  accord- 
ance with  your  recommendation,  adopted  the  following 
resolution : 

"Resolved,  That  in  accordance  with  the  conditions 
annexed  to  the  generous  donation  of  Judge  Perkins,  there 
be  added  to  the  existing  departments  of  instruction  in  the 
Seminary,  a  chair,  to  be  entitled  the  Perkins  Professorship 

*Minutes  of  Synod  of  South  Carolina,  1859,  p.  43. 
24— w 


370 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


of  Natural  Science  in  connexion  with  Revelation;  the 
design  of  which  shall  be  to  evince  the  harmony  of  science 
with  the  records  of  our  faith,  and  to  refute  the  objections 
of  infidel  naturalists." 

And  thus  the  establishment  of  the  chair  was  completed ; 
and  that,  without  trenching  upon  the  ordinary  resources  of 
the  Church ;  but  attended,  rather,  by  such  a  consecration  of 
wealth  to  the  service  of  God  as  is  well  fitted  to  stimulate 
others  to  devote  in  a  similar  manner,  freely,  and  during  their 
life  time,  and  while  that  which  they  give  is  still  their  own, 
the  substance  which  they  have  received  from  the  bountiful 
hand  of  God.  To  Mississippi,  exclusively,  is  the  Seminary 
indebted  for  it;  inasmuch  as  it  originated  in  the  efforts  of 
Dr.  Lyon,  in  the  Presbytery  of  Tombeckbee ;  it  was  cordially 
recommended  by  the  Synod  of  Mississippi ;  and  its  ample 
pecuniary  basis  was  provided  by  the  distinguished  citizen 
of  Mississippi,  whose  honored  name  it  bears.  Thus,  imme- 
diately after  the  Synod  of  Alabama  had  adopted  the  "Semi- 
nary as  their  own,  to  cherish  and  care  for,  support,  help,  and 
encourage  it,"  the  sister  State  on  her  western  border  made 
good  her  claim  to  it  as  her  own,  too,  in  an  eminently  practi- 
cal and  praiseworthy  manner. 

The  Synod  of  Georgia,  to  which  belonged  the  choice  of 
the  professor,  postponed  the  election  for  a  year,  assigning 
as  the  reason,  that  the  Synod  "feels  so  deeply  the  respon- 
sibility of  proceeding  to  an  election  which  will  be  final,  and 
which  will  involve  so  much  the  future  character  of  our 
Theological  Seminary,"  that  it  "decides  that  it  is  for  the 
best  interests  of  our  Church  to  pause,  and  postpone  an  elec- 
tion to  said  professorship,  until  our  next  regular  annual 
meeting,  in  i860."  At  that  meeting,  they  made  their  choice. 
And  now,  Fathers  and  Brethren  of  the  Board  of  Directors, 
though  with  many  misgivings,  and  with  anxious  solicitude 
lest  I  prove  unable  to  occupy  properly  the  position  assigned 
me,  I  have  obeyed  the  call,  and  have  come  to  ask  your 
further  counsel  for  my  direction,  if  I  have  in  any  respect 
failed  to  understand  the  designs  of  the  Church. 

The  general  design  is  evident  enough ;  but  there  are  at 
least  three  methods  by  which  it  may  be  executed ;  and  hence 


HIS  TEACHINGS 


371 


arises  the  doubt:  for  it  may  be  intended  that  each  shall 
receive  equal  attention,  and  the  special  objects  of  each  be 
aimed  at ;  or  only  one  of  them  to  the  exclusion  of  the  others ; 
or  one  chiefly,  and  the  others  subordinately.  In  the  first 
place,  the  harmony  in  question  may  be  evinced  by  showing 
that  science  proves  the  existence  of  God,  and  that  he  has 
attributes  identical,  as  far  as  she  reveals  them,  with  such  as 
are  ascribed  to  him  in  his  word.  From  the  observation, 
both  of  the  "general  order  prevailing  in  the  material  world," 
and  of  the  "special  adaptations"  of  objects  to  the  purposes 
which  they  are  to  serve,  the  being  and  the  unity  of  God 
may  be  inferred,  and  also  his  wisdom,  power,  and  good- 
ness. If  we  proceed  in  this  direction,  the  work  will  be  to 
present  the  outlines  of  Natural  Theology,  as  ordinarily 
understood,  and  to  compare  its  doctrines  with  those  of 
Revealed  Theology:  to  develop  the  apostle's  declaration, 
that  "the  invisible  things  of  God,  from  the  creation  of  the 
world,  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that 
are  made,  even  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead ;"  to  examine 
how  the  heavens,  and  all  his  other  wonderful  works,  "declare 
the  glory  of  God." 

In  the  next  place,  this  harmony  may  be  evinced  by  observ- 
ing the  analogy  which  subsists  between  nature  and  revela- 
tion, in  other  respects  than  those  which  it  belongs  to  natural 
theology  to  consider.  From  the  analogy  observed  between 
them,  from  the  "identity  of  their  style,"  and  from  the  simi- 
larity of  the  difficulties  in  each,  it  becomes  evident  that  both 
have  proceeded  from  the  same  hand.  In  pursuing  this 
course,  natural  science  is  found  to  present  much,  which, 
while  it  might  be  presumptuous  to  say  that  it  confirms  the 
truths  of  revelation,  at  least  illustrates  them,  and  enables  us 
to  understand  them  more  clearly,  to  grasp  them  more  firmly, 
and  to  overcome,  objections  which  might  otherwise  be  per- 
plexing. When  we  have  been  habituated  to  contemplate 
the  almost  illimitable  extent  of  creation,  and  its  almost 
immeasurable  past  duration,  which  science  makes  known, 
the  words,  infinite  and  eternal,  are  of  vastly  grander  signifi- 
cance to  us,  although  we  still  utterly  fail  to  comprehend 
them  in  their  fulness.   When  we  have  been  listening  to  the 


372 


DR.  JAM^S  WOODROW. 


lessons  of  science  concerning  the  care  which  the  Creator 
takes  of  all  his  creatures,  down  to  the  minutest,  and  those 
which  we  so  often  proudly  regard  as  beneath  our  notice, 
we  must  find  it  easier  to  understand  the  lessons  of  the 
word  concerning  his  provident  watchfulness  in  our  behalf. 
When  we  have  become  familiar  with  the  numerous  inter- 
ruptions of  absolute  uniformity  in  the  flow  of  events  in  the 
history  of  our  earth,  and  with  the  beginning  of  new  orders 
of  things,  which  science  reveals  to  us,  so  entirely  independ- 
ent of  the  antecedent  ordinary  course  of  nature,  the  objec- 
tions of  the  subtle  sophist  to  the  possibility  of  the  miracles 
by  which  the  word  is  authenticated,  cannot  give  us  any 
uneasiness;  for  they  are  too  palpably  inconsistent  with 
what  we  thus  come  to  know  of  other  departments  of  God's 
government.  We  are,  indeed,  rather  led  to  anticipate  that 
there  will  be  in  the  moral  world  extraordinary  events,  which 
we  cannot  assign  to  ordinary  causes,  just  as  there  have 
so  often  been  in  the  material  world.  Science  further  illus- 
trates, in  numberless  ways,  many  other  truths  of  revela- 
tion; and  when  it  fails  to  do  this,  when  it  fails  to  throw 
light  upon  the  mysteries  contained  in  the  word,  it  presents 
us  with  other  mysteries  of  its  own,  which  must  at  least 
effectually  keep  us  back  from  the  folly  of  rejecting  the  word 
because  of  its  sayings  dark  and  hard  to  be  understood. 

In  the  third  place,  it  may  be  the  design  of  the  professor- 
ship to  evince  the  harmony  only  where  it  has  been  doubted 
or  denied,  or  where  opinions  prevailing  among  scientific 
men  either  are,  or  are  supposed  to  be,  inconsistent  with  our 
sacred  records ;  in  other  words,  to  scrutinise  the  nature  and 
the  force  of  current  and  popular  objections  to  the  Scriptures ; 
to  meet  them,  and  to  set  them  aside,  by  proving  that  they 
spring  either  from  science  falsely  so  called,  or  from  incorrect 
interpretations  of  the  words  of  the  Holy  Bible.  This  would 
involve  a  careful  study  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
various  branches  of  science  from  which  the  objections  are 
drawn,  and  of  their  details,  carried  far  enough  to  enable  one 
to  judge  correctly  of  the  amount  of  truth  in  each  objection. 
It  would  involve,  further,  the  careful  study  of  the  principles 
of  biblical  interpretation,  as  far  as  these  relate  to  the  mode 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


3?3 


in  which  the  works  of  God  are  spoken  of.  The  comparison 
of  the  results  obtained  thus,  if  the  processes  have  been 
properly  conducted,  must  inevitably  evince  entire  harmony, 
or,  at  least  the  entire  absence  of  discord.* 

Now,  it  is  this  last  which  I  regard  as  constituting  the 
field  on  which  most  labor  is  to  be  expended ;  not  that  the 
first  two  are  to  be  wholly  neglected,  but  this  chiefly 
embraces  the  duties  of  the  professorship. 

If  this  view  is  the  true  one,  it  will  be  proper  to  look  more 
closely  at  some  of  the  details  included  in  the  plan.  What, 
then,  are  some  of  the  leading  points  of  supposed  antagonism 
between  science  and  revelation? 

It  is  affirmed,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  Sacred  Scriptures 
explicitly  teach  that  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  embracing 
the  whole  material  universe,  were  brought  out  of  abso- 
lute non-existence  not  quite  six  thousand  years  ago;  and 
that  from  the  time  when  matter  began  to  exist,  from  the 
first  beginning  of  creation,  until  the  creation  of  the  first 
human  being,  not  quite  six  days  elapsed;  that  the  work  of 
creating  and  preparing  this  earth  to  be  the  abode  of  man, 
and  of  creating  all  animals  that  have  ever  existed,  with  man 
at  their  head,  was  begun,  carried  on,  and  ended,  within  the 
first  six  days  of  time.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  maintained 
that  we  learn,  from  the  investigation  of  the  structure  of  the 
earth,  and  of  the  causes  by  which  the  peculiarities  of  its 
structure  have  been  produced,  that,  instead  of  six  days,  the 
whole  period  that  has  elapsed  since  the  creation  of  man  is  an 
exceedingly  minute  portion  of  the  time  since  the  first  ani- 
mals, whose  remains  still  exist,  were  created;  and  that  the 
earth  had  been  in  existence  during  a  period  immeasurably 
beyond  our  power  to  measure,  prior  to  the  creation  of  the 
first  living  being  that  has  left  any  trace  of  its  having  been  an 
inhabitant  of  the  earth ;  that  the  creation  of  man  and  con- 
temporaneous animals  is  really  one  of  the  most  recent 
events  in  the  earth's  history ;  that  the  world,  during  almost 
inconceivable  periods  of  time,  had  been  preparing  for  man's 
abode ;  during  part  of  which  time,  it  was  apparently  without 
life,  and,  during  the  rest,  it  was  the  dwelling-place  of  suc- 

*See  Speech  before  Synod  of  South  Carolina,  1884. 


374 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


cessive  races  of  organised  beings,  not  one  of  which  remained 
alive  when  man  received  it,  perfectly  fitted  to  be  his  home. 

Intimately  connected  with  many  of  the  facts  involved  in 
the  discussion  of  this  point,  is  the  question  relating  to  the 
introduction  of  death  into  our  world,  and  even  into  the 
universe.  It  is  evident  that  those  who  maintain  the  views 
last  presented,  can  not  believe  that  there  was  no  death  in  the 
world  until  after  man  had  sinned.  They  further  insist  that 
we  may  be  convinced  that  man's  sin  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  death  of  the  lower  animals,  by  an  examination  of  the 
structure  of  the  teeth,  claws,  organs  of  digestion,  and  other 
parts  of  existing  carnivorous  animals,  which  were  created  at 
the  same  time  with  man.  They  receive  with  incredulity  the 
suggestion,  that  the  untold  myriads  of  animals,  which  they 
call  pre-Adamic,  perished  in  anticipation  of  man's  sin;  and 
they  utterly  reject,  as  equally  inconsistent  with  natural  his- 
tory and  the  Scriptures,  the  supposition  that  the  carnivorous 
structure  may  have  been  the  result  of  a  modification  of  that 
previously  belonging  to  graminivorous  animals.  Opposed 
to  this  is  the  belief  that  the  Scriptures  teach  that  death  was 
utterly  unknown  before  the  fall  of  man;  and  that  when  we 
read  that  "by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death 
by  sin,"  not  man's  death  alone  is  spoken  of,  but  all  death ;  the 
death  of  the  simplest  and  minutest  animalcule,  as  well  as  of 
the  sinning  lord  of  creation. 

Another  instance  of  antagonism  is  furnished  by  the  oppo- 
site views  respecting  the  Noachian  deluge.  The  Bible,  we 
are  told,  teaches  most  unequivocally  that  the  waters  of  that 
deluge  spread  over  the  whole  earth,  and  that  they  stood  not 
less  than  fifteen  cubits  above  the  highest  summits  of  the 
Himalayas,  the  Andes,  the  Rocky  Mountains,  the  Alps,  and 
the  loneliest  desolations  of  the  icy  Arctic  deserts,  never  seen 
by  human  eye,  as  well  as  the  highest  hills  and  mountains 
of  Mesopotamia,  and  the  adjoining  regions  to  which  man's 
habitations  may  have  extended ;  and  that  the  whole  earth, 
with  all  its  distinct  zoological  regions  obliterated  for  the 
time,  was  entirely  destitute  of  every  breathing  thing,  except 
those  preserved  with  Noah,  and  his  sons,  and  their  wives,  in 
the  ark.    Others  find  in  nature  reasons  which  absolutely 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


375 


forbid  their  belief  of  such  propositions.  They  find  that  the 
number  of  animals  which  would  need  the  ark's  protection 
is  far  beyond  its  capacity ;  that  if  it  were  not,  passing  by  the 
impossibility  of  all  existing  under  the  same  climate  for  a 
whole  year,  without  a  constant  miracle,  they  find  the  geo- 
graphical distribution  of  animals  to  be  such  that  their  col- 
lection, from  remote  continents  and  islands  of  the  sea,  from 
the  burning  inter-tropical  deserts,  and  the  ice-bound  fast- 
nesses around  the  poles,  and,  still  more,  that  their  re-distri- 
bution to  their  present  homes  involves  an  expenditure  of 
miracle  which  is  incredibly  disproportionate  to  the  end  in 
view:  the  destruction  of  corrupt  mankind  by  a  flood  of 
waters. 

The  question  of  the  unity  of  the  human  race  brings  to 
view  another  point  of  direct  antagonism  between  some  vota- 
ries of  science  and  all  believers  in  the  Bible.  The  Bible  is 
held  to  teach,  with  a  clearness  that  cannot  be  misunderstood, 
both  directly  and  by  implication,  that  the  whole  human 
family  is  descended  from  the  single  pair,  Adam  and  Eve ;  the 
inspired  apostle's  saying  is  quoted,  "God,  that  made  the 
world  and  all  things  therein  .  .  .  hath  made  of  one  blood 
all  nations  of  men  for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face  of  the  earth ;" 
and  this  oneness  is  necessarily  implied  in  the  doctrines  of 
original  sin,  the  federal  headship  of  Adam,  and  the  atone- 
ment of  Christ.  It  is  impossible  to  admit  any  doubt  as  to 
this  unity  and  at  the  same  time  believe  in  the  truth  of  the 
most  vital  doctrines  of  our  religion.  And  yet,  it  is  most 
strenuously  maintained  by  many,  of  no  small  repute  in  the 
scientific  world,  that  numerous  branches  of  knowledge  con- 
spire to  prove  this  dogma  false,  and  to  demonstrate  the 
diversity  of  human  origin.  The  white,  black,  red,  yellow, 
and  brown  races,  with  many  intermediate,  are  held  to  be  dis- 
tinct species  of  animals,  descended  from  different  ancestors ; 
closely  allied  to  one  another,  it  may  be,  but  not  more  so  than 
many  species  of  the  lower  animals,  universally  admitted  to 
be  distinct.  This  is  supposed  to  be  demonstrated  by  the 
diversities  in  their  anatomical  and  physiological  charac- 
teristics, and  by  the  difference  in  their  mental  constitu- 
tion ;  by  the  constancy  of  these  diversities,  as  proved  by 


376 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


pictures  on  the  monuments  of  Egypt;  by  the  determination 
of  "the  bounds  of  their  habitations"  by  natural  laws,  just  as 
rigidly  as  the  bounds  of  the  habitations  of  any  other  ani- 
mals. For  similar  reasons,  it  is  further  maintained,  not 
merely  that  the  human  genus  has  descended  from  many 
pairs  of  ancestors,  but  also  that  these  were  distributed  geo- 
graphically at  the  time  of  their  introduction,  as  we  now  find 
their  descendants. 

In  support  of  these  doctrines,  and  others  which  have 
some  connexion  with  natural  science,  several  other  branches 
of  knowledge  are  appealed  to  continually;  and  the  consid- 
eration of  these,  as  far  as  they  are  supposed  to  affect  such 
doctrines,  and  therefore  the  truth  of  the  Bible,  may  be  fairly 
regarded  as  coming  within  the  confines  of  this  department ; 
all  the  more  reasonably,  since  they  are,  as  regards  their  con- 
nexion with  revelation,  always  classed  in  the  popular  mind 
with  the  sciences  which  belong  to  it  under  a  stricter  defi- 
nition of  its  terms.  Of  this  nature  is  a  knowledge  of  Egypt 
and  her  monuments  and  their  inscriptions,  which  are  repre- 
sented as  teaching  many  a  lesson  totally  irreconcilable  with 
our  sacred  records ;  and  a  knowledge  of  the  antiquities  of  the 
Chinese,  the  Hindoos,  and  other  Eastern  nations,  whose 
established  chronology,  it  is  claimed,  sets  aside,  by  irrefraga- 
ble proofs,  that  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  as  entirely  worth- 
less, the  fabrication  of  some  modern  sciolist.  Indeed,  the 
whole  subject  of  chronology,  as  far  as  it  is  not  included 
within  the  department  of  biblical  exigesis,  and  every  part  of 
archaeology,  with  a  similar  exception,  would,  if  this  exten- 
sion be  just,  also  claim  investigation  from  this  chair.  It 
would  involve  too  minute  details,  if  the  attempt  were  made 
to  enumerate  the  points  of  opposition  which  are  alleged  to 
exist  in  this  direction.  I  will  mention  but  one,  which  clearly 
illustrates  the  necessity  of  embracing  the  subjects  just  speci- 
fied. As  before  stated,  it  is  held  that  the  Bible  teaches  that 
man  was  created  less  than  six  thousand  years  ago.  In 
opposition  to  this,  we  are  told  that,  although  man  was  intro- 
duced at  a  late  period  of  the  earth's  history,  he  has  been  in 
existence  not  less  than  from  thirty  thousand  to  one  hundred 
thousand  years ;  and  that  this  has  been  proved  by  the  arch- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


377 


geological  monuments  and  the  authentic  chronology  of  many- 
nations,  no  less  than  by  geology  and  palaeontology. 

These  are  some  of  the  questions,  showing  the  nature  of  all, 
which  I  regard  it  as  my  chief  duty  to  examine  and  to  dis- 
cuss before  the  classes  in  the  Seminary.  What  is  the 
method  to  be  pursued  in  doing  this ;  in  what  spirit  are  the 
investigations  to  be  carried  on;  and  what  results  may  be 
anticipated? 

It  is  evident  that  it  will  be  impossible  to  ascertain  whether 
science  and  revelation  agree  or  disagree,  without  an  intimate 
acquaintance  with  both,  as  far  as  they  are  to  be  compared. 
To  gain  this,  then,  would  seem  to  be  the  first  thing  to  be 
done.  While  thus  engaged  the  most  untrammelled  freedom 
of  inquiry  must  be  allowed;  and  on  both  classes  of  subjects, 
our  decisions  must  be  regulated  by  their  proper  evidence. 
In  this  preliminary  investigation,  we  must  neither  be  gov- 
erned in  our  views  of  natural  science  by  what  we  may  have 
believed  to  be  taught  in  the  Bible;  nor,  on  the  other  hand, 
must  we  do  violence  to  the  words  of  the  Bible,  under  the 
influence  of  our  belief  in  any  supposed  teachings  of  science. 
There  must  be  the  most  unbiased  readiness  to  accept  as 
truth  whatever  is  proved.  And  yet,  at  the  same  time  that 
we  advance  with  the  fullest  liberty,  it  should  be  with  the 
profoundest  humility  and  distrust  of  our  own  powers,  joined 
with  the  deepest  reverence  for  all  that  God  makes  known  to 
us,  both  in  his  works  and  in  his  word.  Under  the  influence 
of  such  feelings,  and  proceeding  with  the  firm  conviction 
that  truth,  like  its  Author,  is  one,  we  can  hardly  fail  to  make 
progress  in  all  attainable  knowledge ;  while  we  will  be  kept 
from  the  folly  of  believing  that  there  are  real  inconsistencies, 
demonstrating  error  on  one  side  or  other,  merely  because 
we  have  not  succeeded  in  comprehending  the  actual  mode 
in  which  the  different  sections  of  the  truth  are  related  to 
each  other.  Believing  firmly  and  cordially  that  every  part 
of  the  Bible  is  the  very  word  of  God,  and  that  therefore 
every  part  of  it  is  absolutely  true,  in  the  sense  in  which  it 
was  the  design  of  its  real  Author,  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  it 
should  be  understood,  I  also  firmly  believe  that  nothing  will 
be  found  inconsistent  with  it  in  the  established  teachings  of 


378 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


natural  science.  I  do  not  say,  of  nature ;  for  with  my  unwav- 
ering confidence  in  the  truth  of  the  Bible,  I  would  regard 
that  as  a  mere  truism,  the  utterance  of  which  would  be 
superfluous ;  but,  of  natural  science,  as  it  is  expounded  by 
its  own  votaries,  and  as  its  propositions  are  determined 
according  to  its  own  laws  of  investigation.  Contradiction 
would  necessarily  imply  a  want  of  truth  somewhere;  but 
this,  I  think  it  may  be  made  to  appear,  by  the  most  rigorous 
reasoning,  does  not  exist.  And  in  all  cases  where  there  are 
still  unadjusted  apparent  differences,  which,  it  must  be 
admitted,  do  exist,  it  can  be  shown  that  it  is  infinitely  more 
probable  that  they  result  from  imperfect  understanding  of 
the  meaning  of  the  word,  or  of  the  bearing  of  the  scientific 
truth,  or  both,  than  from  any  real  inconsistency.  There  are 
independent  propositions  in  intellectual  and  moral  science, 
and  even  in  theology,  which  are  seemingly  inconsistent,  and 
almost  contradictory;  and  yet  we  never  think  of  abandon- 
ing our  belief  in  any  of  them,  if  each  stands  on  a  firm  basis 
of  its  own.  In  no  case  do  the  imperfectly  understood  rela- 
tions under  consideration  present  more  serious  difficulties 
than  these,  and  very  seldom  as  serious.  I  further  believe 
that  there  is  no  seeming  discrepancy  where  the  denial  of  the 
truth  on  either  side  would  not  involve  vastly  more  perplex- 
ing embarrassment  than  its  reception  on  both.  We  have 
nothing  to  fear  for  the  records  of  our  faith  from  the  freest 
examination  in  every  direction.  Let  antiquity  be  searched ; 
let  the  created  universe  be  scrutinised,  as  far  as  the  human 
intellect,  so  gifted  by  its  Creator,  can  reach :  though  in  the 
process  we  shall  see  many  errors  which  have  clung  around 
our  own  minds,  and  which  may  have  prevented  our  seeing 
the  meaning  of  the  divine  word,  that  word  will  derive  con- 
tinually new  lustre  from  every  advance  in  knowledge,  and 
unbelievers  will  at  each  step  be  more  and  more  without 
excuse  for  their  irrational  doubts. 

In  seeking  to  obtain  and  to  impart  a  suitable  acquaintance 
with  natural  science,  it  will  be  proper,  first  of  all,  to  examine 
the  logical  and  philosophical  basis  upon  which  its  branches 
rest.  In  the  analysis  of  every  science,  we  come  at  last  to 
certain  principles  on  which  the  whole  fabric  is  founded,  and 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


379 


on  whose  truth  the  entire  trustworthiness  of  the  whole 
depends.  These  first  principles  cannot  in  any  case  be  estab- 
lished by  ordinary  reasoning;  but  must  be  such  that  they 
command  the  assent  of  every  rational  being  as  soon  as  they 
are  stated  and  understood.  After  having  carefully  scru- 
tinised these  first  truths,  and  rejected  all  that  cannot 
endure  the  proper  tests,  and  determined  the  limits  of  the 
applicability  of  such  as  are  retained,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
pass  in  review  the  doctrines  of  the  several  sciences  con- 
cerned, and  to  weigh  the  evidence  in  favor  of  each,  and  the 
objections  against  each,  so  as  to  ascertain,  as  accurately  as 
possible,  the  exact  amount  of  confidence  that  is  to  be  placed 
in  them.  We  will,  doubtless,  in  such  an  examination,  find 
much  that  we  must  receive  as  certainly  true ;  much  that  is 
certainly  false,  or  at  least  wholly  unproven ;  with  much  that 
presents  such  evidence  as  to  leave  us  in  doubt.  Under  the 
first  head,  I  would  place  the  teachings  of  geology  respect- 
ing the  antiquity  of  the  earth,  and  the  gradual  nature  of 
the  processes  by  which  the  Creator  brought  it  into  its  pres- 
ent condition;  under  the  second,  I  would  place  the  teachings 
of  such  ethnologists  as  deny  the  specific  unity  of  the  human 
family,  and  of  those  who  maintain  the  extreme  antiquity  of 
man ;  under  the  third.  I  would  place  all  that  affects  the 
character  and  extent  of  the  Xoachian  deluge. 

In  all  these  preliminary  discussions  and  investigations, 
only  such  evidence  and  arguments  as  strictly  belong  to 
science  should  be  admitted ;  and  these  should  be  allowed  to 
produce  their  legitimate  effects,  without  regard  to  possible 
difficulties  in  which  our  conclusions  may  entangle  us.  Our 
cross-examination  of  the  witness  should  be  conducted  with 
the  design  of  learning  exactly  what  he  knows;  of  eliciting 
this  knowledge  from  him  unbiased  by  any  fear  of  evil  to 
himself  in  consequence  of  his  utterances,  or  of  evil  to  either 
of  the  parties,  since  we  examine  him  as  judges,  and  not  as 
advocates.  And  we  must  not  estimate  the  truthfulness  of 
the  witness  himself  by  the  correspondence  of  his  testimony 
with  our  preconceived  notions ;  but  these  we  must  change 
as  his  evidence  requires,  if  his  character  for  undoubted 


380 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


veracity  has  been  previously  established  by  the  proper 
tests. 

In  the  next  stage  of  our  inquiry,  the  absolute  truth  of 
the  ascertained  text  of  the  Bible  is  assumed,  as  having  been 
demonstrated  in  other  departments  of  instruction;  and  the 
sole  object  here  will  be  the  determination  of  its  meaning, 
by  the  application  of  judicious  and  established  rules  of  inter- 
pretation. Here,  as  before,  it  will  be  grossly  improper  to 
attempt  to  make  the  language  bear  any  construction  incon- 
sistent with  these  rules;  to  torture  it  into  accordance  with 
our  preconceived  opinions  of  its  meaning,  or  with  what  we 
believe  to  be  true  in  science.  In  all  interpretation,  we 
ought  assuredly  to  have  recourse  to  the  fullest  attainable 
knowledge  of  the  subjects  spoken  of,  derived  from  every 
source.  And  while  it  is  true  that  we  must  interpret  Scrip- 
ture by  its  own  laws,  it  is  not  less  true  that  we  can  apply 
these  more  efficiently,  and  with  less  liability  to  error,  in 
cases  where  we  have  some  previous  acquaintance  with  the 
topics  introduced.  We  are  clearly  aided  in  understanding 
all  that  relates  to  the  tribes  and  nations  mentioned,  by  a 
knowledge  of  their  manners  and  customs ;  by  geography,  in 
all  geographical  allusions ;  by  astronomy,  where  the  stars  are 
concerned ;  by  zoology  and  phytology,  where  animals  and 
plants  are  alluded  to ;  and  so  in  other  cases.  We  are  not  to 
try  the  truth  of  the  Bible,  certainly,  by  its  supposed  agree- 
ment or  disagreement  with  the  teachings  of  these  sciences ; 
but  we  may,  and  we  must,  accept  all  the  aid  that  they  can 
bring  us.  This  is  not  denied  with  regard  to  the  subjects 
just  mentioned ;  but  when  other  sciences,  equally  well  estab- 
lished, are  added,  there  is  sometimes  immediate  dissent. 
This  dissent  would  be  quite  justifiable,  were  the  attempt 
made  to  force  the  Bible  to  speak  in  the  language  of  science. 
To  do  this  would  be  quite  as  unreasonable  as  the  attempt, 
which  is  so  frequently  made,  to  force  science  to  utter  that 
which  will  accord  with  our  views  of  the  meaning  of  the 
Bible;  and  it  should  be  strenuously  resisted.  But  I  see  no 
reason  why  we  should  not  accept  this  external  assistance  in 
doubtful  cases ;  nor  do  I  see  why  the  assistance  should  be 
accepted  where  some  scientific  principles  are  concerned,  and 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


381 


rejected  when  it  is  offered  by  others  equally  well  proven. 
If  it  be  objected  to  these  views,  that  if  science  can  be  justi- 
fied in  its  rejection  of  aid  from  the  Bible,  by  the  same  rea- 
soning it  may  be  shown  that  the  Bible  should  refuse  all  aid 
from  science;  it  is  replied  that  this  would  be  just,  were 
the  question  of  the  truth  of  the  Bible  on  trial ;  that  must  be 
determined  by  rules  of  evidence  with  which  natural  science 
can  have  very  little  to  do.  But  the  objection  is  manifestly 
without  foundation,  when  we  remember  that  the  natural 
sciences  are  based  upon  principles  which  it  would  be  for- 
eign to  the  design  of  the  Bible  to  teach,  and  upon  material 
phenomena  which  it  would  be  unreasonable  to  expect  to 
find  recorded  there  in  scientific  form ;  while,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  incidental  allusions,  throughout  the  sacred  vol- 
ume, to  natural  objects,  whose  very  incidental  character  it  is 
that  renders  them  unavailable  to  science  as  formal  descrip- 
tions of  phenomena,  presuppose  some  knowledge  of  that  to 
which  reference  is  made,  and  make  necessary  the  applica- 
tion of  that  knowledge  before  the  allusions  can  be  under- 
stood. 

When  we  come,  in  the  third  stage,  to  compare  the  results 
of  these  two  independent  lines  of  inquiry,  we  ought  to 
expect  to  find  perfect  accordance  only  in  case  we  are  per- 
fectly certain  that  we  have  reached  the  absolute  truth  in 
science,  and  that  the  meaning  which  we  attach  to  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Bible  is  indubitably  the  true  one.  But  how 
far  are  we  from  this  position  in  both  directions?  As  we 
have  seen,  there  is  much  that  passes  under  the  name  of 
science  that  is  only  probable  at  the  best;  and  much  that, 
while  it  seems  possibly  true,  as  long  as  it  is  viewed  by  itself, 
is  shown  to  be  wholly  impossible  as  soon  as  the  scope  of 
vision  becomes  broader.  And  who  will  say  that  it  is  other- 
wise with  our  interpretations  of  the  Bible?  Not,  certainly, 
that  there  is  any  doubt  as  to  its  meaning  when  it  describes 
the  relations  of  the  Almighty  Creator  to  the  universe,  his 
handiwork;  or  the  ruined  and  miserable  condition  of  man, 
the  sinner ;  or  the  coming,  and  the  life,  the  death,  the  resur- 
rection, and  the  ascension  of  our  blessed  Divine  Redeemer; 
or  the  way  in  which  the  gift  of  salvation  is  imparted  to 


382 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


man,  and  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  third  person  of 
the  Trinity,  in  sanctifying  his  soul ;  or  the  blessedness  of  the 
redeemed,  in  that  presence  where  there  is  fulness  of  joy. 
In  all  that  relates  to  these  points,  and  to  all  the  attributes 
of  God,  which  he  intended  that  we  should  know,  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  is  so  clear  that  a  wayfaring  man,  though  a 
fool,  need  not  err  therein.  But,  whenever  we  turn  aside 
from  these  broad  tracks  of  light,  we  find  that  the  diversity 
of  view  on  every  subject,  among  those  who  receive  and  love 
the  saving  truth,  proves  but  too  clearly  how  difficult  it 
must  be  to  reach  the  exact  meaning  of  that  which  is 
revealed.  How  much  more  must  this  be  the  case  with 
regard  to  material  objects,  to  which  the  references  are  but 
casual  and  without  any  direct  bearing  whatever  upon  the 
main  subject  of  discourse.  Who  will  venture  to  assert  dog- 
matically that  he  has  found  the  exact  and  full  meaning  of 
that  which  is  thus  casually  introduced?  And  yet,  such  is  the 
character  of  a  large  portion  of  the  points  by  which  reve- 
lation is  supposed  to  be  connected  with  science. 

With  regard  to  the  record  of  creation,  it  may  fairly  be 
questioned  whether  it  is  possible  to  convey  to  us  in  human 
language  an  intelligible  account  of  its  mode  and  its  details. 
To  be  intelligible,  it  must  be  conveyed  in  language  whose 
meaning  has  been  previously  determined  by  common  use. 
This  determination  has  been  effected  by  the  application  of 
particular  words  and  expressions  to  known  objects  and  pro- 
cesses. Now,  it  may  well  be  supposed  that  the  work  of 
creation  is  so  entirely  different,  in  every  respect,  from  any- 
thing which  it  is  possible  for  us  to  observe,  and  thus  become 
acquainted  with,  and  from  the  ordinary  course  of  change, 
and  the  relations  in  which  material  objects  stand  to  each 
other  and  to  intelligent  beings,  on  all  which  language  is 
founded,  that  a  knowledge  of  its  details  can  no  more  be 
communicated  to  us  than  a  knowledge  of  the  nature  and 
properties  of  light  can  be  communicated  to  the  blind.  But, 
however  this  may  be,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  the  way  of 
imparting  a  knowledge  of  the  fact  of  the  creation,  and  of 
all  its  moral  bearings,  as  far  as  they  affect  us.  But  when  we 
seek  to  go  farther,  the  state  of  the  case  may  be  analogous 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


383 


to  our  knowledge  of  the  trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead ; 
the  fact  we  know,  and  its  moral  import  to  us ;  but  the  exact 
nature  of  the  personality,  and  the  mode  of  the  union,  we  do 
not  know;  and  it  is  more  than  probable  that  these  could 
not  be  made  known  to  us  by  human  language. 

In  view  of  these  considerations :  the  imperfect  character 
of  science ;  the  doubt  which  must  hang  around  many  of  our 
interpretations  of  the  Bible,  on  account  of  the  brief,  and 
therefore  obscure,  descriptions  to  be  interpreted;  and  the 
probability  that  language  may  not  be  adequate  to  convey 
the  ideas  for  which  we  may  be  looking,  and  which  we  may 
infer  it  is  no  part  of  the  design  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  present ; 
we  may  expect  to  find  many  unadjusted  differences,  instead 
of  perfectly  established  harmony.  When  the  comparison  is 
made  in  the  manner  described,  our  surprise  will  be  to  find 
that  there  are  so  few  discrepancies,  and,  further,  that  the 
number  of  points  of  certain  connexion  of  any  kind  is  so 
small.  Complete  success  in  the  work  you  have  given  me 
to  do  would  be  attained,  if  the  real  relationship  were  posi- 
tively determined  in  every  case,  and  this  were  to  be  shown 
to  be  perfect  identity  or  visible  harmony.  Whether  or  not 
this  will  ever  be  attainable,  I  know  not.  I,  at  least,  do  not 
hope  for  it,  and  I  will  regard  myself  as  having  discharged 
my  duty  and  fulfilled  all  reasonable  requirements,  when 
I  succeed  in  presenting  one  or  more  possible  and  probable 
views  of  the  existing  relations,  compatible  with  belief  of  the 
truth  of  both;  and  have  proved  that  the  reception  of  these 
involves  infinitely  less  difficulty  than  any  doubt  of  the 
truth  of  the  Bible :  thus  showing,  with  regard  to  each  point 
in  succession,  that  it  furnishes  no  one  with  the  slightest 
excuse  for  rejecting  that  which  we  love  and  confide  in  as 
the  word  of  God. 

In  conducting  such  investigations,  and  in  defending  the 
word  of  God  against  attacks  based  upon  natural  science,  we 
ought  to  be  continually  on  our  guard  against  a  dogmatic 
adherence  to  opinions  which  may  not  be  well  founded,  and 
the  denunciation  as  infidel  of  whatever  differs  from  our 
own;  and,  also,  against  a  facile  acceptance  of  every  novel 
and  attractive  hypothesis  which  may  spring  up  in  the  field  of 


384 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


science.  We  are  warned  of  the  danger  to  which  we  are  here 
exposed,  by  the  history  of  past  controversies,  and  of  embit- 
tered contests  between  interpretations  of  the  Scriptures 
and  views  of  nature,  all  of  which  are  now  alleged  to  be 
erroneous.  The  chief  danger  seems  to  have  arisen  from  a 
disposition  which  has  manifested  itself  in  every  age,  and 
which,  unhappily,  too  often  evinces  its  continued  existence 
up  to  the  present  day,  to  regard  every  mention  of  material 
objects  as  couched  in  the  current  scientific  language  of  the 
day ;  and  from  the  groundless  belief  that  the  sacred  volume, 
besides  being  fitted  to  accomplish  its  chief  and  highest  ends, 
is  also  a  text-book  containing  the  whole  body  of  scientific 
truth  of  every  kind,  as  well  as  the  most  authentic  and 
instructive  history  of  human  affairs,  and  the  collection  of  the 
sublimest  and  sweetest  strains  of  poetry  in  existence. 

I  confess  myself  unable  to  understand  how  a  proposition 
can  be  theologically  true  and  scientifically  false,  when  both 
the  theology  and  the  science  are  accepted  as  true;  but  this 
does  not  prevent  my  perceiving  that  the  statement  may  be 
true,  when  understood  in  one  sense,  and  false,  when  under- 
stood in  another ;  and  the  consequent  impropriety  of  attrib- 
uting the  one  meaning  to  it,  when  the  other  is  designed. 
If  any  one  tells  us  that  the  sun  stands  still  for  a  certain 
period  in  the  winter,  and  again  in  the  summer,  we  would 
hardly  be  justifiable  in  replying  that  there  is  a  gross  mistake 
implied  in  the  assertion ;  that  he  must  be  ignorant  of  modern 
astronomy ;  that  it  stands  still  all  the  time.  And  should  we 
have  reason  to  receive  the  statement  as  certainly  true,  we 
would  not  think  of  making  it  the  basis  of  a  new  astronomy, 
of  which  one  of  the  principles  would  be,  that  at  certain 
periods  of  the  year,  called  the  solstices,  the  sun  is  in  a 
state  of  absolute  rest,  and  during  the  rest  of  the  year  it  is  in 
constant  motion.  If,  in  a  case  like  this,  we  are  willing  to 
ascertain  the  meaning  intended,  surely  we  should  be  equally 
careful  in  interpreting  the  word  of  God;  and  should  avoid 
taking  as  a  formal  scientific  explanation  of  a  phenomenon, 
that  which  is  merely  a  description  of  it  in  ordinary  lan- 
guage. Although  this  principle  is  so  reasonable  that  no 
one  would  ever  think  of  calling  it  in  question,  it  has  been  in 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


385 


practice  sadly  neglected.  Systems  of  natural  science  have 
been  invented  in  direct  violation  of  it,  for  the  support  of 
which,  not  only  have  the  allusions  to  nature  in  the  narrative 
portions  of  the  Bible  been  quoted  by  the  inventors,  but  also 
the  boldest  figures  of  its  most  impassioned  poetry. 

The  danger  in  question  exhibits  itself  in  two  forms.  In 
the  one,  there  is  an  eager  desire  to  bring,  to  force,  if  need 
be,  the  sacred  text  into  accordance  with  the  last  doubtful 
utterance  of  science,  and  an  impatient  contempt  towards 
all  who  will  not  at  once  accept  as  demonstrated  the  newly 
discovered  harmony.  In  the  other,  although  there  is  pro- 
fessed a  distrust  of  all  natural  science,  there  is  a  no  less  real 
accommodation  of  the  interpretation  to  the  somewhat  anti- 
quated and  distorted  form  of  science  which  has  reached  the 
less  educated  classes  of  mankind ;  and  this  is  represented  as 
interpreting  the  word  by  its  own  light;  assigning  to  it  just 
such  a  meaning  as  it  would  seem  fitted  to  convey  to  the 
unlettered,  unbiased  mind  of  a  plain,  unsophisticated,  hon- 
est inquirer  after  truth.  In  whatever  form  it  may  appear, 
we  cannot  be  too  careful  in  guarding  against  its  influence; 
whether  it  would  lead  us  to  commit  the  word  to  new 
hypotheses  on  the  outskirts  of  science,  in  the  region  of  the 
undetermined,  or  to  the  old  guesses,  which  have  long  been 
exploded  and  abandoned.  Profiting  by  the  lessons  of  the 
past,  we  will  require  ample  proof  of  the  incorrectness  of 
an  interpretation  which  has  long  been  sanctioned  by  devout 
men  of  learning,  before  we  give  it  up ;  and  we  will  scrutinise 
with  zealous  care  the  evidence  by  which  all  new  theories 
are  sustained,  affirming  new  modes  of  connexion ;  and  we 
will  hesitate  long  before  we  adopt  them,  in  the  hope  that 
we  may  avoid  changes  which  may  so  easily  be  used  to 
bring  discredit  upon  that  which  we  most  highly  prize.  But, 
while  thus  cautious  in  the  examination  and  admisson  of  all 
professed  friends,  lest  they  be  enemies  in  disguise,  and  lest 
they  become  an  element  of  weakness,  if  not  actual  traitors, 
there  should  be  equal  care  taken  to  avoid  the  other  extreme, 
of  rejecting  with  scornful  contempt,  all  proffers  of  alliance 
and  cooperation,  and  thus  doing  what  we  can  to  drive  those 
who  may  be  friends,  or  at  least  neutrals,  into  the  ranks  of 


25— w 


386 


DR.  JAMUS  WOODROW. 


the  enemy.  This,  too,  has  been  done,  to  an  unfortunate 
extent,  in  all  ages  of  the  Church.  There  has  been  too  often  a 
disposition  to  repress  all  freedom  of  inquiry,  and  to 
denounce  its  results,  without  any  impartiality  of  examina- 
tion, as  opposed  to  the  letter  and  spirit  of  revelation.  The 
day  when  the  instruments  used  in  restraining  such  freedom 
were  material,  has  passed  away;  but,  unhappily,  others  are 
still  used  which  sometimes  inflict  not  less  pain.  There  still 
exists  too  much  of  the  old  spirit  in  the  purest  branches  of 
the  Church  of  this  day,  a  spirit  that  would  crush  all  prog- 
ress in  science,  if  such  progress  disturb,  in  the  least,  cher- 
ished views  which  may  be  without  real  foundation  in  the 
Bible,  by  the  employment,  not  now  of  material  instruments 
of  torture,  but  by  that  which  has  with  too  much  truth  been 
denominated  "odium  theologicutn."  This  is  utterly  at  vari- 
ance with  the  spirit  of  Christianity,  and  its  divine  charter. 
And  it  is  at  variance  with  the  general  practice  of  believers 
in  the  Bible;  for  with  regard  to  most  subjects,  the  utmost 
encouragement  is  given  to  the  seeker  after  increased 
knowledge ;  and  very  properly,  since  every  new  discovery  is 
found  to  be  an  additional  illustration  of  the  glory  of  God. 
Such  encouragement  should  be  given  to  every  inquiry  after 
truth.  Not  merely  should  the  inquirer  be  tolerated;  but  he 
should  have  reason  to  know  that  he  is  regarded  with  appro- 
bation, and  that  his  results  will  be  received  with  candor, 
while  they  are  subjected  to  all  becoming  tests,  before  they 
are  adopted  as  true ;  and  that  his  name  will  not  be  cast  out 
as  evil,  he  will  not  find  himself  classed  with  unbelievers, 
because  his  views  may  at  first  sight  seem  to  be  inconsistent 
with  received  truth.  Let  the  Church  show  herself  the 
patroness  of  learning  in  everything,  as  she  has  done  already 
in  most  things ;  and  let  her  never  be  subjected,  by  mistaken 
friends,  to  the  charge  that  she  fears  the  light,  and  can  sus- 
tain her  claims  only  where  this  is  partially  obstructed.  Let 
her,  through  all  her  members,  exhibit  that  love  for  the  truth 
on  every  subject,  which  is  sometimes  directly  forcibly  incul- 
cated in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  which  is  so  consonant  with 
their  spirit  throughout. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


387 


This,  then,  in  my  opinion,  is  the  spirit  by  which  the  incum- 
bent of  the  professorship  should  be  actuated;  these  are  the 
objects  to  be  sought,  and  the  plan  to  be  pursued,  and  the 
results  to  be  expected.  Direct  confirmation  of  the  truth  of 
revelation  is  not  looked  for;  it  is  not  needed.  You  cannot 
hope  to  render  more  firm  the  foundation  of  the  mountain  of 
granite.  But  the  fogs  which  hang  around  its  base,  and 
obscure  its  immovable  nature,  and  distort,  to  the  beholder, 
the  symmetry  of  its  acclivities,  may  be  dispelled,  and  thus 
its  solid  foundation  and  true  proportions  be  brought  more 
clearly  to  view.  This,  I  believe,  the  faithful  discharge  of  the 
duties  belonging  to  this  chair  will  tend  greatly  to  effect; 
success  in  this  will  constitute  its  triumph  and  its  glory  . 

Complete  success  I  dare  not  hope  for  at  once ;  but  I  shall 
labor  for  it  with  at  least  faithful  industry,  and  an  honest 
desire  to  attain  and  set  forth  all  the  truth.  And  I  look  to 
you,  and  to  the  beloved  Church  which  founded  the  Semi- 
nary of  which  you  have  been  constituted  Directors,  and 
whose  honor  and  purity  should  be  so  jealously  guarded,  to 
aid  me  by  your  counsels  and  your  prayers,  that  I  may  be 
kept  from  teaching  aught  but  the  unadulterated  and  unper- 
verted  truth.  And  above  all,  I  look  to  the  Head  of  the 
Church,  and  to  the  Creator  of  the  universe,  and  to  the 
Author  of  the  word,  to  the  Triune  God  of  truth,  for  that 
wisdom  which  cometh  from  him  alone,  and  by  the  aid  of 
which  alone  need  I  hope  to  glorify  him  in  the  position  to 
which,  I  trust,  he  has  been  calling  me  by  the  voice  of  his 
Church. 


388 


DR.  JAMES  W00DR0W. 


Geology  and  Its  Assailants. 


An  Article  Published  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian 
Review,  April,  1863. 


The  progress  of  the  science  of  geology  has  at  every  step 
been  resisted  with  singular  obstinacy  and  bitterness.  The 
world  opposes  every  new  doctrine,  on  its  first  promulga- 
tion, unwilling  to  confess  its  previous  ignorance.  We  are 
offended  when  our  fixed  opinions  are  rudely  disturbed; 
when  we  are  called  upon  to  admit  that  we  have  been  pro- 
claiming as  truth  that  which  is  false.  And  however  unrea- 
sonable this  may  appear,  if  we  confine  our  attention  to  the 
efforts  made  to  destroy  doctrines  which  we  believe  to  be 
true,  it  is  not  unattended  by  valuable  results;  for  many  a 
false  doctrine  is  thus  detected  and  exposed;  while  every 
truth,  before  it  is  permitted  to  take  rank  among  the  clearly 
established  and  undeniable,  has  its  real  character  evinced  by 
the  scrutiny  to  which  it  is  subjected,  and  by  the  tests  applied 
to  it,  as  it  never  would  have  been,  had  it  been  suffered  to 
pass  unchallenged.  But  geology,  besides  undergoing  this 
rigid  examination,  as  a  new-comer  upon  the  field  of  truth, 
has  been  assailed  with  unwonted  vehemence.  From  the 
formation  of  its  first  provisional  hypothesis,  to  bind  together 
the  few  imperfectly  known  facts,  down  to  the  present  time, 
when  its  leading  principles  must  be  looked  upon  by  all  who 
have  adequately  examined  the  subject  as  firmly  established, 
it  has  been  forced  to  meet  and  to  overcome  such  violent,  and 
even  virulent  opposition  as  has  been  made  to  perhaps  no 
other  science.  The  reason  of  this  is,  that  it  has  been 
regarded  as  the  enemy  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  These  we 
receive  as  containing  truths,  compared  with  which  all  others 
sink  into  insignificance;  and  so  fully  authenticated  by  the 
strongest  evidence  of  every  kind,  that  it  is  impossible  for  a 
reasonable  mind  to  doubt  them,  or  to  receive  as  true  any 
thing  that  is  really  inconsistent  with  them.  But  instead  of 
causing  such  unseemly  opposition  to  the  progress  of  knowl- 
edge, this  faith  should  rather  lead  those  who  are  actuated  by 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


389 


it  to  further  all  inquiries  after  truth;  believing",  knowing, 
that  the  final  result  of  every  investigation  will  be  to 
strengthen  the  foundations  of  natural  religion,  and  to  show 
that  entire  harmony  subsists  between  every  truth  thus  dis- 
covered and  all  that  is  taught  in  the  word  of  life,  whenever 
they  relate  to  the  same  subject.  It  is  difficult  to  repress  a 
doubt  as  to  the  genuineness  and  strength  of  that  faith  which 
would  check  the  freest  search  after  truth  in  the  works  of 
God.  It  must  often  be  the  result  of  weak  faith,  and  a  secret 
dread  that,  after  all  something  may  be  found  out  that  will 
compel  an  abandonment  of  belief  in  the  Bible.  But  in  many 
cases  it  would  be  unjust  to  attribute  this  course  to  a  want 
of  faith.  There  is  one  other  source  of  suspicion  and  hatred 
of  scientific  discoveries,  and  apparently  but  one ;  it  is  that 
while  we  have  undoubting  faith  in  the  word  of  God,  we 
have  equal  confidence  in  our  ability  to  interpret  it,  and  are 
influenced  by  that  intolerance  towards  all  who  believe  either 
less  or  more  than  ourselves,  which  is  the  disgrace  of  our 
kind.  It  is  time  that  this  virulent  opposition  were  laid  aside, 
and  that  we  who  know  the  truth  of  the  Bible  should  act 
neither  as  though  we  feared  every  moment  that  it  may  be 
proved  to  be  a  mythical  collection  of  questionable  traditions, 
nor  in  wicked  violation  of  the  spirit  of  forbearance  and  love 
taught  in  its  pages. 

Geologists  have  seldom  taken  any  notice  of  attacks,  either 
upon  themselves  or  upon  their  science,  knowing  that  the 
science  needs  only  to  be  studied  to  evince  its  truth  to  any 
fair  mind;  and  believing  that  every  effort  to  convince,  by 
sound  reasoning,  those  who  could  adopt  the  prevailing  anti- 
geological  hypotheses  would  be  utterly  futile;  that  those 
who  adopt  their  opinions  without  reason  can  not  be  con- 
vinced by  reason.  Such  contemptuous  neglect  may  seem 
supercilious ;  and  yet  it  is  hardly  to  be  wondered  at  or  con- 
demned, so  wild  and  absurd  are  many  of  the  guesses  which 
it  would  be  necessary  to  controvert.  But  we  think  that  this 
silence  has,  to  some  extent,  been  injurious  to  the  cause  of 
truth ;  for,  by  many  who  can  not  examine  for  themselves,  it 
has  been  construed  into  an  acknowledgement  of  the  success 
of  the  attacks.    Therefore  we  propose  to  consider  a  few 


390 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


of  the  most  plausible  objections  which  have  been  urged 
against  geology.  We  design  not  so  much  to  advance  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  the  truth  of  the  science,  as  to  exhibit,  in 
the  present  article,  the  character  of  the  assaults  upon  it,  and 
to  point  out  some  of  the  mistakes  of  anti-geologists  concern- 
ing its  nature;  and,  at  some  future  time,  to  present  speci- 
mens of  the  hypotheses  which  they  would  have  us  receive 
instead  of  the  established  geological  theories. 

In  the  war  against  geology,  as  in  most  other  wars,  there 
have  been  many  classes  of  combatants,  and  it  has  been 
waged  with  various  degrees  of  fairness.  A  few  of  the 
assailants,  perhaps,  really  know  what  the  science  is,  but 
have  been  unable  to  satisfy  themselves  of  the  certainty  of  its 
fundamental  principle;  and  have  honorably  attempted  to 
destroy  it,  by  showing  that  it  has  nothing  to  rest  upon.  We 
express  ourselves  doubtfully  here;  for  while  it  is  possible 
that  this  class  may  exist,  we  have  to  confess  our  ignorance 
of  its  actual  existence.  Another  class  attack  it  without  pro- 
fessing to  know  any  thing  of  it,  except  that  it  is  charged 
with  teaching  that  which  is  inconsistent  with  the  Bible. 
Without  waiting  to  learn  whether  or  not  the  charge  is  true, 
they  forthwith  do  what  they  can  to  expel  it  from  the  domain 
of  the  credible.  We  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that,  if  this 
charge  could  be  substantiated,  we  would  at  once  join  this 
attacking  party;  believing  that  the  truth  of  the  Bible  is 
established  by  evidence,  external  and  internal,  of  such  over- 
whelming strength,  that  whatever  is  inconsistent  with  its 
ascertained  teachings  is,  by  that  fact  alone,  proved  to  be 
untrue ;  just  as  we  would  pronounce  that  course  of  reason- 
ing to  be  untrue,  without  waiting  to  hear  any  part  of  it, 
which  ended  with  the  assertion  that  the  sum  of  the  angles 
of  a  plane  triangle  is  greater  or  less  than  two  right  angles. 

Another  class,  with  some  knowledge  of  the  subject,  but 
this  distorted,  because  it  is  imperfect,  or  because  it  has  been 
sought  not  with  the  desire  to  reach  the  truth,  but  to  estab- 
lish a  foregone  conclusion,  are  conspicuous  upon  the  field. 
Often  their  arguments  are  well  constructed,  of  undoubted 
facts,  bound  together  by  undeniable  first  principles,  and 
would  utterly  demolish  the  scientific  claims  of  geology,  did 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


391 


these  involve  the  absurdities  or  depend  upon  the  untruths 
thus  prostrated.  But,  unfortunately  for  the  conquerors,  it 
is  not  geology  that  they  have  attacked,  but  something  else, 
that  they  have  oddly  mistaken  for  it.  The  caricature 
receives  a  death-blow  from  the  same  hand  that  has  brought 
it  into  existence,  but  geology  remains  unharmed. 

But,  perhaps,  it  has  happened  still  oftener  in  the  history 
of  this  conflict,  that  not  merely  has  something  different  from 
geology  been  mistaken  for  it,  but  the  assailing  arguments 
have  been  even  more  grotesque  than  the  caricature  of  geol- 
ogy assailed.  For  striking  illustrations  of  this,  we  refer  our 
readers  to  Art.  V.,  No.  3,  Vol.  XIII.,  of  this  Review.  And 
others  we  will  give  as  we  proceed. 

Of  the  modes  of  warfare  practised,  some,  as  we  have  inti- 
mated, are  perfectly  honorable;  but  others,  we  must  say, 
are  just  the  reverse,  unworthy  of  honest  combatants  or  of 
a  just  cause.  No  one  can  or  does  object  to  the  attempt  to 
prove  that  geology  is  not  a  science;  that  its  advocates  are 
in  error;  that  its  principles  have  not  yet  been,  and  can  not, 
from  the  nature  of  the  subject,  hereafter  be  established. 
If  success  attend  these  efforts,  great  good  will  have  been 
effected;  the  cause  of  truth  will  have  been  promoted.  If 
success  be  unattained,  and  unattainable,  the  only  painful 
consequence  will  be  loss  of  time  and  reputation  to  the  mis- 
taken anti-geologist. 

It  is  also  quite  fair  to  try  to  set  aside  geological  principles, 
by  showing  that  all  known  facts  may  be  explained  quite 
as  satisfactorily,  or  even  more  so,  by  other  theories  than 
those  advanced  by  the  geologist.  This  course  is  attended 
by  consequences  of  the  same  kind  as  in  the  last  case ;  but 
hitherto  the  inconveniences  have  been  more  serious  in 
degree ;  for  every  effort  of  this  nature  has  evinced  such 
remarkable  ignorance,  either  of  the  facts  to  be  accounted  for, 
or  of  the  general  physical  laws  involved  in  the  hypotheses 
advanced,  that  all  reputation  for  exact  scientific  knowledge 
has  been  immediately  lost  to  the  author,  and  he  has  become 
a  laughing-stock  to  all  who  are  really  acquainted  with  the 
subject. 


392 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Thus  far,  however,  no  moral  obliquity  has  been  mani- 
fested ;  nothing  disgraceful  has  been  done ;  no  poisoned 
arrows  have  been  employed.  But  what  shall  we  say  of  the 
last  mode  to  be  noticed,  which,  unhappily,  is  more  fre- 
quently resorted  to  than  all  others?  This  consists  in  excit- 
ing suspicion  and  prejudice  against  the  geologist,  by  raising 
the  hue  and  cry  of  "rationalist,"  "skeptic,"  "infidel," 
"atheist."  Unable  to  refute  his  arguments  in  an  honorable 
way,  he  who  adopts  this  plan  represents  him  as  systemati- 
cally laboring  to  prove  that  to  be  false  and  worthless  which 
the  Christian  heart  prizes  above  every  thing  in  the  world 
besides.  Some  times  he  charges  him  with  open  infidelity — 
with  assailing  the  Bible  without  disguise;  at  other  times, 
with  consciously  desiring  to  cause  the  Bible  to  be  rejected  as 
untrue,  while  he  hypocritically  professes  to  be  a  believer; 
at  other  times,  with  holding  such  loose  views  of  inspiration, 
that,  although  his  professions  of  belief  may  be  sincere,  his 
rationalistic  opinions  are  even  more  dangerous,  if  possible, 
than  those  of  other  classes.  Now,  that  there  have  been  geol- 
ogists justly  liable  to  these  charges,  we  do  not  deny ;  but  we 
protest  against  the  generalisation  of  the  charge ;  against 
imputing  such  antagonism  to  the  Bible,  in  whole  or  in  part, 
to  geologists  as  a  class.  It  is  untrue;  it  is  unkind;  it  is 
unworthy  a  good  cause,  especially  the  cause  of  Christian 
truth. 

Near  akin  to  this  is  the  practice  of  representing  the  con- 
test as  one  between  Christians,  and  especially  ministers, 
("parsons,"  as  the  clerical  writer  will  sometimes  say,  in 
order  to  gain  the  sympathy  always  freely  accorded  to  the 
persecuted,)  on  the  one  hand,  and  unclerical  and  uninformed 
geologists  on  the  other.  All  professional  expositors  of  the 
Sacred  Scriptures,  whose  orthodoxy  can  be  admitted;  all 
sound  believers  of  sufficient  knowledge  and  discrimination 
to  prevent  their  holding,  at  the  same  time,  irreconcilable 
opinions,  are  anti-geologists ;  while  those  whom  they  oppose 
are  half-learned  laymen,  who  either  do  not  know  what  the 
Bible  teaches,  or  do  not  care.  Now,  would  it  not  surprise 
those  who  have  been  believing  such  representations  to  learn 
that  just  the  reverse  is  true?  And  yet  such  is  the  fact.  The 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


393 


leading  writers  on  the  geological  side  have,  with  few  excep- 
tions, been  ministers  of  the  gospel,  of  every  denomination, 
whose  profound  reverence  for  the  whole  Bible  as  the  very 
word  of  God,  has  never  been  called  in  question;  while  the 
leading  anti-geological  writers  have  been  laymen ;  some  of 
whom  have  taken  the  most  unwarrantable  liberties  with  the 
sacred  text,  and  have  without  scruple  rejected  those  parts  of 
it  which  would  not  agree  with  their  hypotheses.  This  is  so 
well  known  to  all  acquainted  with  the  literature  of  the  con- 
troversy, that  it  might  seem  superfluous  to  substantiate  it 
by  an  enumeration  of  the  various  authors.  But  the  frequent 
reiteration  of  erroneous  assertions  on  this  point  makes  it 
necessary  to  give  at  least  a  few  names. 

Let  us  see,  then,  among  the  more  prominent  writers,  who 
are  the  self-styled  defenders  of  Bible  truth,  in  the  contro- 
versy between  geology  and  the  Bible,  as  this  strife  is  incor- 
rectly termed,  and  who  are  the  infidel  geologists.  Among 
the  latter  we  find  the  ministry  of  every  branch  of  the  Christ- 
ian Church  well  represented.  Among  the  Presbyterians  in 
Scotland,  Dr.  Chalmers,  the  champion  of  the  Free  Church, 
maintained  so  earnestly  one  geologico-scriptural  hypothesis 
that  he  is  frequently  referred  to  as  its  author.  It  is  hardly 
necessary  to  assert  his  orthodoxy.  The  geological  works  of 
Dr.  David  King,  of  the  United  Presbyterian  Church,  and 
of  Dr.  J.  Anderson,  of  the  Established  Church  of  Scotland, 
must  be  generally  known.  The  orthodoxy  of  these  writers 
is  also  above  suspicion.  Of  the  Independents  of  England, 
none  are  regarded  as  sounder  in  the  faith  than  the  late  Dr. 
Pye  Smith  and  Dr.  Harris.  The  Congregationalist  Dr. 
Hitchcock,  the  chief  advocate  of  geological  views  in  New 
England,  is  one  of  the  most  evangelical  divines  in  that 
region.  And  we  have  yet  to  hear  the  charge  of  rationalism 
or  infidelity,  latent  or  avowed,  brought  against  Professor 
Sedgwick,  Bishop  Sumner,  and  Dean  Buckland,  of  the 
Established  Church  of  England,  except  as  it  is  brought 
against  all  who  do  not  adopt  the  peculiar  views  of  anti- 
geologists.  And  yet  all  of  these  have  maintained  the  infidel 
geological  views !  The  only  very  prominent  layman  among 
the  authors  on  that  side  is  Hugh  Miller ;  and  his  orthodoxy 


394 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


was  so  undoubted  that  he  was  chosen  the  editor  of  the  organ 
of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland. 

The  chief  of  those  who  have  gratified  their  enemies,  (if 
they  have  any,)  by  writing  books  on  the  other  side,  are  the 
laymen,  David  N.  and  Eleazar  Lord,  of  this  continent,  who, 
we  doubt  not,  are  sincere  believers  in  the  word  of  God,  as 
they  understand  it;  and  Granville  Penn  and  George  Fair- 
holme,  of  Great  Britain,  who  deliberately  set  aside  such 
parts  of  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis  as  will  not  bend  to  their 
unscientific  notions. 

If  we  turn  to  the  writings  of  those  Romish  and  Puseyite 
authors  who  are  characterised  by  the  profoundest  reverence 
for  the  Holy  Scriptures,  errorists  though  they  are,  we  find 
the  same  thing  to  be  true.  We  need  only  refer  to  Dr.  Pusey 
and  Cardinal  Wiseman,  to  prove  the  correctness  of  this 
statement.  The  work  of  Cardinal  Wiseman,  on  the  con- 
nexion between  Natural  Science  and  Revealed  Religion, 
in  which  he  shows  how  the  principles  of  geology  may  be 
consistent  with  the  biblical  record  of  creation,  is  justly 
admired  as  evincing  the  most  sacred  regard  for  God's  word, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  a  competent  knowledge  of  natural 
science,  united  with  remarkable  philosophic  fairness  of 
mind. 

When  we  examine  the  works  of  authors  who  have  written 
in  foreign  tongues,  the  ver}^  same  fact  presents  itself.  The 
most  thoroughly  evangelical  ministers  of  the  gospel,  the  pro- 
fessional expositors  of  the  word  of  God,  who  most  cordially 
and  unreservedly  believe  in  its  plenary  inspiration,  maintain 
at  once  the  truth  of  geological  teachings  and  their  harmony 
with  the  more  precious  doctrines  of  revelation ;  while  many, 
we  believe  most,  of  the  principal  non-clerical  writers,  both 
believers  and  unbelievers,  of  all  shades,  and  those  who,  from 
their  training,  may  reasonably  be  expected  to  be  imperfectly 
acquainted  with  one  side  of  the  subject  or  the  other,  deny 
that  it  is  possible  for  both  the  Bible  and  geology  to  be  true. 
For  full  illustration  and  proof  of  this,  we  need  only  compare 
the  views  of  the  theologians,  Kurtz,  Hengstenberg,  Tholuck, 
and  Delitzsch,  with  those  of  the  laymen,  Wagner,  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


395 


believer,  Btmsen,  the  rationalist,  De  Luc,  De  Serres,  down 
to  Vogt,  the  scoffing  disbeliever. 

In  the  selection  of  the  above  named  authors,  we  have 
endeavored  to  bring  forward  those  who  fairly  represent  all 
the  principal  writers  on  the  subjects  involved:  a  full  enu- 
meration, we  believe,  would  lead  to  the  same  conclusion. 
Thus  is  demonstrated  the  serious  (yet,  we  hope,  uninten- 
tional) mistake  of  anti-geologists,  who  are  so  fond  of  class- 
ing geologists  with  infidels,  or  with  those  who  know  little  of 
the  Bible  and  its  teachings,  or  care  little  for  them.*  It 
must  not  be  supposed  that  we  regard  the  point  at  issue  as 
one  which  can  be  settled  by  vote,  or  by  the  authority  of  the 
learned  and  godly  Christian  ministers  to  whom  we  have 
referred.  But  we  do  think  that  the  opinions  of  such  men 
ought  to  silence  the  cry  of  "infidel,"  "rationalist,"  etc.,  which 
many  are  so  ready  to  raise  against  all  who  believe  the  doc- 
trine of  the  earth's  antiquity.  We  think,  too,  that  we  are 
entitled,  as  ministers,  to  no  special  privileges  in  our  dis- 
cussions with  geologists.  If  there  is  a  contest,  it  is  not 
between  "parsons"  and  geologists;  and  we  must  not  falsely 
assume,  if  we  attack  geology,  that  we  go  forth  as  standard- 
bearers  of  the  Church  against  infidelity,  or  to  sustain  the 
doctrines  of  the  Church;  when  the  Church  catholic,  during 
the  last  forty  years,  has  given  forth  the  opinion,  as  far  as  can 
be  learned  from  the  writings  of  its  leading  spirits,  that  the 
Bible  no  where  teaches  any  thing  that  is  inconsistent  with 
modern  geology. 

The  first  mistake  of  anti-geologists  concerning  the  nature 
of  the  science  which  we  will  notice  is,  that  they  generally 
suppose  it  to  be  cosmogony,  or,  at  least,  geogony,  a  history 
of  the  origin  or  creation  of  the  universe,  or,  at  least,  of  our 

*It  is  true  that  the  names  of  many  ministers  might  be  given  who  have, 
in  pamphlets,  etc.,  denied  the  possibility  of  any  agreement  between 
geology  and  the  Bible:  as  the  Rev.  Mellor  Brown,  Dr.  Dickinson,  Prof. 
Baden  Powell,  and  others;  and  we  would  be  sorry  to  deprive  such 
excellent  laymen  as  Dennis  Crofton,  Dr.  R.  Poole,  Gibson,  Pattison,  and 
others,  of  the  credit  which  they  deserve  as  defenders  of  the  truth  of 
both  the  Bible  and  geology.  But  this  does  not  affect  the  truth  of  the 
assertion,  that  most  of  the  professional  expositors  of  the  Scriptures  who 
have  written  at  length  upon  the  subject,  during  the  last  half-century,  in 
every  branch  of  the  Christian  Church,  have  believed  that  the  doctrines 
of  geology  are  in  no  way  inconsistent  with  those  of  sacred  writ. 


396 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


earth.  Accordingly,  if  it  fail  to  give  a  satisfactory  account 
of  the  creation,  to  demonstrate  in  what  state  matter  first 
appeared,  and  what  were  all  the  successive  steps,  from  the 
very  first,  by  which  the  earth  assumed  its  present  form  and 
condition,  it  is  held  to  be  worthless,  and  to  have  failed  in 
all  that  it  proposed  to  do.  This  shows  an  entire  misappre- 
hension of  its  character  and  its  aim.  No  reasonable  geolo- 
gist has  ever  claimed  this  for  his  science.  He  regards  it  as 
a  history  of  those  changes  which  have  distinctly  left  their 
record  in  the  earth's  crust.  Many  of  these  records  are  now 
read  as  easily,  and  with  as  much  certainty  as  to  their  mean- 
ing, as  state  papers  in  government  archives  relating  to  the 
events  of  the  last  century;  while  others  resemble  rather 
the  faded  and  tattered  fragments  of  ancient  documents, 
in  almost  obsolete  tongues,  from  which  we  can  with  the 
utmost  toil  learn  only  the  leading  characteristics  of  the  ages 
to  which  they  refer.  In  tracing  the  history  of  any  nation 
towards  its  origin,  we  at  length  reach  a  point  where  his- 
torical truth  begins  to  be  mingled  with  doubtful  traditions ; 
still  beyond  this,  we  are  either  left  wholly  to  conjecture,  or 
are  dependent  for  a  few  glimpses  of  possible  truth  upon 
fabulous  legends.  Thus,  in  Roman  history,  we  gradually 
pass  from  the  certain,  through  the  period  of  Curtius's  self- 
sacrificing  leap,  the  divine  origin  of  Romulus  and  Remus 
and  their  preservation  by  the  she-wolf,  to  the  wanderings 
of  ^Eneas  and  lulus.  We  trace  with  considerable  confi- 
dence the  history  of  Egypt  to  the  time  of  the  great  Rameses 
Miamun,  whose  predecessors  we  see  with  increasing  dim- 
ness, as  far  as  the  looming  figure  of  Menes,  beyond  which 
all  is  lost  in  the  night-gloom  of  fabulous  reigns  of  gods.  So 
it  is  in  geology.  We  trace  with  perfect  distinctness  the 
general  course  of  events,  through  the  comparatively  recent 
period  of  the  tertiary,  through  the  stirring  times  of  the  sec- 
ondary, and  almost  to  the  beginning  of  the  ancient  fossil- 
bearing  primary  strata.  During  this  time,  it  is  true,  there 
are  many  events  over  which  doubt  hangs,  as  in  other  his- 
tories ;  but  this  does  not  affect  the  truth  of  what  we  know. 
Our  knowledge  becomes  more  fragmentary  beyond  this 
point,  as  we  penetrate  the  non-fossiliferous  strata,  because 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


397 


they  are  marked  with  but  few  characters  now  legible, 
nearly  all  that  we  understand  having  been  obliterated,  if 
they  ever  existed.  When  we  reach  the  unstratifled  rocks, 
we  can  learn  nothing  from  them,  except  here  and  there  an 
isolated  fact.  Of  the  changes  which  these  may  have  pre- 
viously undergone,  we  know  nothing.  But  just  as  specu- 
lations concerning  the  possible  meaning  of  the  story  of 
Romulus,  or  the  possible  basis  of  fact  which  Egyptian 
mythology  may  have,  do  not  invalidate  the  truth  of  succeed- 
ing history,  so  speculations  concerning  the  possible  pre- 
vious condition  (if  such  there  was)  of  the  oldest  unstrati- 
fled rocks,  do  not  affect  the  truth  of  the  account  of  succeed- 
ing events  that  lie  within  the  geological  historic  period. 
Hence  the  assaults  upon  the  nebular  hypothesis,  upon  the 
assumption  that  the  earth  was  at  one  time  a  molten  globe, 
and  even  upon  the  doctrines  of  central  heat  and  metamor- 
phism,  do  not  touch  geology;  and  if  it  could  be  demon- 
strated that  these  conjectures  are  wholly  unphilosophical 
and  untrue,  the  scientific  history  of  the  earth,  as  presented 
to  us  by  the  geologist,  would  be  no  more  rendered  doubtful 
than  would  the  history  of  Julius  Caesar,  by  proving  that  he 
was  not  descended  from  lulus ;  or  the  existence  of  Rome,  by 
proving  that  Mars  was  not  the  father  of  Romulus,  and  that 
a  wolf  was  not  his  foster-mother. 

It  will  be  seen,  from  these  considerations,  that  the  greater 
part  of  every  anti-geological  argument  at  once  tumbles  to 
the  ground,  as  soon  as  it  has  been  ascertained  what  geology 
professes  to  be.  No  part  of  the  doctrine  of  the  earth's 
hoary  antiquity  rests  upon  what  we  may  term  the  mythical 
period  of  the  earth's  history — that  antecedent  to  the  forma- 
tion of  the  oldest  stratified  rocks.  And  the  semi-historical 
period  of  the  non-fossiliferous  strata  might  also  be  omitted, 
without  at  all  endangering  it. 

This  limitation  of  geology  to  its  proper  sphere  might 
have  been  expected  to  mitigate  the  violence  of  its  assailants ; 
but  when  one  of  its  most  distinguished  founders  ventured  to 
disclaim  for  his  science  the  power  of  seeing  back  to  the  first 
moment  of  creation,  or  of  looking  forward  to  the  final  con- 
summation of  all  things,  saying  that  he  could  "see  no  traces 


398 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


of  a  beginning,  or  indications  of  a  coming  end,"  a  reserve 
guard  of  anti-geologists  denounced  him  as  an  infidel,  who 
flatly  denied  the  truth  of  the  biblical  account  of  the  creation, 
and  of  the  predicted  end  of  the  world ;  his  modest  disclaimer 
of  omniscience  concerning  the  entire  history  of  the  earth, 
was  distorted  into  an  atheistic  assertion  of  the  eternity  of 
matter.  And  to  this  day,  the  luckless  Hutton  is  the  standing 
illustration  of  the  atheistical  tendencies  of  natural  science 
generally,  and  especially  of  geology.  The  unhappy  science 
is  thus  placed  in  this  dilemma:  if  it  attempt  to  go  beyond 
its  admitted  boundaries,  and  to  approach  nearer  the  myste- 
ries of  creation  by  means  of  probable  conjecture,  it  is 
frowned  upon  as  impiously  presumptuous,  and  it  is  falsely 
represented  as  requiring  its  conjectures  to  be  received  as 
certainties ;  on  the  other  hand,  if  it  modestly  confine  itself 
to  rigid  reasoning  and  ascertainable  truths,  it  is  angrily 
driven  away  as  grossly  atheistic. 

Another  mistaken  view  of  the  science — quite  a  favorite 
with  anti-geologists — is,  that  there  is  nothing  settled  in  it; 
that  its  votaries  do  not  agree  on  a  single  important  point, 
except  in  asserting^  the  antiquity  of  the  earth.  The  follow- 
ing extracts  from  Lord's  Geognosy  will  show  how  this  is 
presented : 

"That  so  mistaken  a  system  should  have  gained  the  assent 
and  advocacy  of  so  large  a  body  of  studious  and  talented 
men,  is  truly  a  matter  of  astonishment.  The  fact,  indeed, 
that  they  universally  and  unhesitatingly  concur  in  assigning 
a  vast  period  to  the  formation  of  the  strata,  is  sometimes 
alleged  as  a  proof  of  the  validity  and  amplitude  of  the  evi- 
dence on  which  their  judgment  is  founded.  The  unanimity 
and  ardor  with  which  they  maintain  it,  and  the  disquietude, 
and  not  unfrequently  discourtesy,  with  which  they  receive  a 
doubt  of  its  truth,  are  certainly  remarkable.  The  concur- 
rence, however,  is  seen  to  be  entitled  to  but  little  weight, 
when  it  is  considered  that  it  is  almost  absolutely  confined 
to  this  branch  of  their  speculations ; — that  there  is  not 
another  question  in  the  whole  range  of  their  system  in 
regard  to  which  they  do  not  entertain  a  wide  diversity  of 
opinion.    They  are  not  agreed,  for  example,  whether  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


399 


world,  at  its  creation,  was  in  a  gaseous  or  in  a  solid  form. 
They  are  not  agreed  in  respect  to  the  process  by  which 
granite,  gneiss,  schist,  and  the  other  primary  rocks  were 
produced.  They  are  not  agreed  in  respect  to  the  point  at 
which  the  secondary  series  commences,  the  order  of  the 
strata,  the  sources  from  which  some  of  their  elements  were 
drawn,  nor  the  agencies  to  which  they  owe  their  peculiar 
structure.  They  differ  in  respect  to  the  point  at  which 
vegetable  and  animal  life  commenced,  and  the  forms  which 
it  first  assumed.  They  entertain  the  most  diverse  and 
absurd  opinions  respecting  the  origin  of  limestone,  coal, 
gypsum,  chalk,  magnesia,  iron,  and  salt.  They  hold  con- 
flicting views  in  regard  to  the  state  of  the  globe  at  the 
epoch  of  the  different  formations,  the  forces  by  which  the 
strata  were  dislocated,  the  causes  by  which  the  mountains 
were  upthrown,  the  period  at  which  land  animals  were  first 
called  into  existence,  and  the  origin  of  the  races  that  now 
inhabit  the  globe.  They  differ,  likewise,  to  the  extent  of 
countless  ages,  in  regard  to  the  period  that  has  elapsed 
during  the  formation  of  the  strata.  In  short,  beyond  the 
simple  facts,  that  the  strata  have  been  formed  since  the 
creation  of  the  earth,  that  chemical  and  mechanical  forces 
of  some  kind  were  the  principal  agents  in  their  deposition, 
and  that  the  fossilised  forms  that  are  imbedded  in  them 
once  belonged  to  the  vegetable  and  animal  worlds,  there  is 
scarce  a  topic  of  any  moment  in  the  whole  circle  of  the 
science  in  respect  to  which  they  do  not  maintain  very 
diverse  opinions;  there  is  scarce  a  solitary  point  so  fully 
ascertained  as  to  be  placed  beyond  doubt." — Pp.  303,  304, 
305- 

We  have  selected  this,  because  it  is  an  exhaustive  enumer- 
ation of  the  discordant  opinions  which  prevail.  It  is  cer- 
tainly a  formidable  one;  and  with  the  exception  of  the 
clause  respecting  the  "order  of  the  strata,"  it  is  correct.  But 
as  far  as  the  historic  period  of  geology  is  concerned,  these 
discordances  are  of  little  importance.  The  arguments 
which  are  supposed  to  prove  that  the  earth  and  its  earlier 
inhabitants  were  called  into  being  more  than  ten  thousand 
years  ago,  are  not  touched  by  a  single  point  in  the  enumer- 


400 


DR.  JAMES  W00DR0W. 


ation.  We  say  ten  thousand  years;  for  if  this  period  be 
admitted,  it  matters  little,  as  regards  any  imaginary  con- 
nexion with  biblical  chronology,  whether  the  time  of  crea- 
tion was  ten  thousand  or  ten  thousand  million  years  ago. 
If  even  the  numbers  six  thousand  or  seven  thousand  be 
abandoned,  it  must  be  on  the  ground  that  the  Bible  does  not 
fix  the  time  of  the  creation.  Therefore,  the  only  point  which, 
at  first  sight,  seems  to  bear  materially  upon  the  question  at 
issue,  does  not  really  affect  it ;  for,  after  "differing  to  the 
extent  of  countless  ages,  in  regard  to  the  period  that  has 
elapsed  during  the  formation  of  the  strata,"  all  agree  that 
the  shortest  possible  period  immeasurably  exceeds  ten  thou- 
sand years.  The  whole  argument  rests  upon  "the  simple 
facts  that  the  strata  have  been  formed  since  the  creation 
of  the  earth,  that  chemical  and  mechanical  forces  of  some 
kind  were  the  principal  agents  in  their  deposition" — forces 
ascertainable  from  an  examination  of  the  strata  and  their 
contents — "and  that  the  fossilised  forms  that  are  imbedded 
in  them  once  belonged  to  the  vegetable  and  animal  worlds." 
It  is  not  pretended  that  there  is  a  want  of  agreement  as  to 
these  facts;  and  the  chronological  question  is  settled  by 
them.  And  even  the  great  majority  of  those  who  have 
begun  to  study  them  with  the  sole  design  of  showing  that 
they  do  not  prove  the  earth's  antiquity,  have  soon  become 
convinced  of  that  which  they  set  out  to  overthrow. 

We  have  already  said  that  the  diversity  of  opinion  among 
geologists  is  of  little  importance.  It  no  more  weakens  the 
confidence  due  to  the  science  as  a  whole,  than  the  difference 
among  British  historians  make  us  doubt  the  principal  facts 
of  British  history.  And  yet,  what  a  startling  list  of  discord- 
ant views  and  statements  might  be  given !  They  are  not 
agreed,  for  example,  whether  Great  Britain,  when  first 
visited  by  man,  was  an  island  or  a  part  of  the  continent  of 
Europe.  They  are  not  agreed  in  respect  to  the  origin  of  the 
races  by  which  it  was  first  peopled.  They  are  not  agreed 
in  respect  to  the  time  when  the  Cymry  obtained  possession 
of  the  island ;  whether  their  settlement  was  opposed  by  wild 
beasts  or  human  beings;  or  when  their  power  was  finally 
broken,  and  they  were  forced  to  yield  to  the  Teuton.  They 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


401 


entertain  the  most  diverse  and  absurd  opinions  respecting 
the  origin  and  design  of  the  so-called  runic  inscriptions,  the 
remarkable  circles  of  stones  near  Stonehenge  and  elsewhere, 
assigning  them  to  the  Phoenicians,  the  British  Druids,  and 
to  the  Romans.  They  differ  in  respect  to  the  point  at  which 
parliaments  began  to  assemble,  and  the  forms  and  powers 
which  they  at  first  assumed.  They  hold  conflicting  views 
in  regard  to  the  social  condition  of  the  people  at  different 
epochs,  the  moral  forces  by  which  society  was  convulsed, 
and  even  in  regard  to  the  causes  of  the  last  revolution — 
whether  they  were  political  or  religious.  They  differ,  like- 
wise, to  the  extent  of  many  centuries,  in  regard  to  the  period 
when  the  Phoenicians  first  visited  their  shores.  And  so  the 
enumeration  might  proceed  indefinitely.  But  who  regards 
British  history  as  rendered  thereby  so  uncertain  that  it 
would  be  unsafe  to  say  that  the  Celts,  the  Saxons,  and  the 
Romans  successively  governed  the  island,  and  that  it  has 
certainly  been  inhabited  for  not  less  than  two  thousand 
years?  Of  no  greater  weight  are  the  objections  urged 
against  geology  from  this  source. 

We  might  here  leave  this  objection,  were  it  not  for  the 
deep  impression  which  it  has  made  upon  the  popular  mind ; 
from  the  incessant  reiteration  of  the  assertion  that  there  is 
nothing  settled  in  geology,  and  of  the  advice  to  wait  until 
it  has  settled  itself  before  an  effort  shall  be  made  to 
settle  its  relations  to  revealed  truth.  Even  if  there  were 
serious  differences  among  geologists — which,  as  we  have 
seen,  is  not  the  case  in  respect  to  the  question  at  issue — it 
would  be  unwise  to  conclude  that  the  subject  is  worthy  of 
no  consideration  on  the  part  of  sensible  men,  until  these 
differences  are  adjusted.  This  principle  would  prevent  our 
giving  our  attention  to  any  subject  whatever,  or  believing 
any  thing  whatever,  except,  perhaps,  our  own  existence. 
We  could  not  believe  in  the  existence  of  a  material  world ; 
how  often  has  its  existence  been  denied  by  learned  philoso- 
phers !  We  must  refuse  our  assent  to  the  truths  of  math- 
ematics, astronomy,  optics,  chemistry,  electricity:  to  what 
must  we  not  refuse  it?  Mathematicians  are  not  agreed 
even  as  to  the  definition  of  a  straight  line.  Astronomers 


26 — w 


402 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


hold  the  most  conflicting  views  respecting  the  nebulae, 
double  stars,  the  nature  and  orbits  of  comets,  the  origin  of 
meteors,  and  the  condition  of  interastral  space.  Philoso- 
phers have  wrangled  without  ceasing  over  the  questions, 
whether  light  is  material  substance,  or  the  effect  of  mere 
motion;  whether  the  so-called  elements  are  simple  sub- 
stances, or  compounds ;  whether  matter  is  infinitely  divisible 
or  composed  of  atoms;  whether  the  phenomena  of  elec- 
tricity are  due  to  one  fluid,  two  fluids,  or  none.  But  who, 
for  this  reason,  says  that  he  will  wait  until  they  are  settled, 
and  then  he  will  listen  to  the  conclusions  reached?  Before 
deciding  that  it  would  be  wise  to  avow  or  advise  such  a 
determination,  it  would  be  well  to  observe  the  force  with 
which  the  principle  might  be  turned  against  us,  when  we  are 
seeking  to  win  the  attention  of  unbelievers  to  our  holy 
religion.  Scarcely  any  objection  to  pure  and  scriptural 
Christianity  is  oftener  upon  the  lips  of  its  opponents.  The 
work  of  the  eloquent  Bossuet,  Histoire  des  Variations  des 
Bglises  Protestantes,  ought  to  be  regarded  as  conclusive 
against  Protestantism,  if  such  a  principle  satisfy  us.  And 
how  shall  we  answer,  when  we  are  called  upon  to  state 
what  one  point  in  the  Christian  system  is  settled?  To 
what  extent  is  the  book  containing  its  principles  to  be 
received  as  true?  Is  it  alone  sufficient  to  reveal  to  us  the 
whole  will  of  God,  or  do  we  need  the  traditions  of  the 
Church  besides?  Does  it  teach  that  God  exists  in  one 
person,  or  in  three?  What  was  the  design  of  Christ's  death? 
What  is  taught  as  to  the  future  state  of  the  wicked?  What 
is  the  scriptural  system  of  Church  government?  And  so 
the  objector  proceeds.  Let  the  advocates  of  Christianity, 
says  he,  settle  among  themselves  what  their  principles  are, 
and  then  it  will  be  time  enough  for  us  to  look  into  the 
matter.  If  we  condemn  such  cavils  as  weak  and  foolish,  in 
this  case,  let  us  not  expose  ourselves  to  similar  condemna- 
tion. We  can  not  heed  the  advice  to  wait  until  there  shall 
be  no  cavillers.  And  if  we  proclaim  the  untruth  of  geology, 
let  it  be  after  a  candid  examination  of  the  evidence  by  which 
it  is  supported,  and  not  because  we  have  found  that  there 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


403 


are  differences  among  its  votaries,  on  some  points  on  the 
outskirts  of  the  science. 

In  the  next  place,  the  combined  influence  of  preconceived 
opinions  and  imperfect  knowledge  on  the  part  of  anti- 
geologists,  is  strikingly  exemplified  by  their  misconception 
of  arguments  in  the  proper  domain  of  geology.  It  is  not 
that  they  have  not  examined  the  subject ;  but  that  they  have 
examined  it  with  the  predetermination  to  find  nothing  but 
absurdities  and  contradictions.  An  admirer  and  intimate 
friend  of  the  most  prominent  anti-geological  writer  in  Amer- 
ica once  said  to  us,  when  an  apparent  want  of  knowledge 
was  attributed  to  him,  "He  has  studied  more  works  on  geol- 
ogy than  any  man  in  this  country ;  I  know  he  has  read  a  pile 
that  would  more  than  reach  from  the  floor  to  the  ceiling  of 
this  room."  To  what  purpose  all  this  reading  and  study 
have  been,  let  one  example  show.  Geologists  hold  that  the 
materials  of  which  the  stratified  rocks  are  composed  were 
derived  from  the  disintegration  of  previously  existing  rocks. 
On  this  doctrine  this  author  remarks : 

"The  strata  of  the  earth  are  held  by  geologists  to  be,  on 
an  average,  about  ten  miles  in  depth.  To  maintain,  there- 
fore, that  their  materials  were  derived  from  continents  and 
mountains  of  granite,  and  were  borne  from  them  by  torrents 
and  rivers  to  the  ocean,  is  to  imply  that  these  granite  con- 
tinents and  mountains,  even  if  they  covered  as  large  an 
area  as  the  strata  now  occupy,  were  at  least  ten  miles  above 
the  level  of  the  ocean ;  and  if  the  mountains  from  which  it  is 
represented  the  matter  of  the  strata  was  chiefly  drawn,  were 
of  but  half  or  two-thirds  the  extent  of  the  strata  that  are 
supposed  to  have  been  formed  from  them,  then  they  must 
have  been  elevated  at  least  fourteen  or  fifteen  miles  above 
the  level  of  the  ocean.  But  mountains  elevated  to  such 
an  enormous  height,  and  extending  over  vast  areas,  could 
never  have  been  disintegrated  by  the  action  of  the  air,  water, 
and  heat.  There  would  have  been  no  air,  except  of  the  most 
attentuated  kind,  and  no  water  at  all,  probably,  at  such  an 
elevation.  On  the  supposition  that  vapors  could  have 
ascended  to  such  a  height,  and  fallen  in  the  form  of  snow, 
they  would  for  ever  have  remained  congealed.    No  heat 


404 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


could  have  been  developed  there  sufficient  to  dissolve  them. 
No  rivers,  therefore,  could  have  flowed  from  them,  and  con- 
sequently no  detritus  could  have  been  borne  from  them  to 
the  sea,  to  be  distributed  over  its  bottom,  and  form  layers 
like  our  present  strata." — Lord's  Geognosy,  pp.  21,  22. 

Now,  in  the  first  place,  no  geologist  holds  that  "the  strata 
of  the  earth  are,  on  an  average,  about  ten  miles  in  depth." 
They  do  hold  it  as  an  indisputable  truth,  that  the  combined 
thickness  of  overlapping  strata,  which  have  certainly  been 
formed  successively,  is  ten  miles  or  more;  but  not  that  all 
the  strata  making  up  this  thickness  occur  in  any  one  place, 
much  less  in  every  place.  It  is  clear,  from  a  consideration 
of  the  manner  in  which  the  strata  were  formed — by  deposi- 
tion from  water — that  they  could  not  have  been  formed  sim- 
ultaneously over  every  part  of  the  earth ;  and  further,  many 
strata  and  parts  of  strata  have  been  removed  by  denudation. 
In  the  next  place,  these  continents  ten  miles  high,  and  these 
mountains  fourteen  or  fifteen  miles  high,  where  there  could 
be  no  air  and  no  water,  are  required  by  no  geological  theory, 
but  exist  only  in  the  imagination  of  the  anti-geologist. 
Daily  observation  teaches  us  that  the  surface  of  the  earth 
does  not  stand  at  a  fixed  level,  but,  on  the  contrary  that  it  is 
sinking  here  and  rising  there.  And  the  hypothesis  of 
the  geologist  is,  that  changes  like  those  in  progress  now 
have  always  been  going  on ;  and  that  as  at  present,  so  during 
the  past,  detrital  matter  has  been  conveyed  from  such  parts 
of  the  earth  as  have  been  for  the  time  elevated,  to  such  as  for 
the  time  have  been  depressed.  Thus  does  this  anti-geologist, 
after  all  his  study,  show  how  ignorant  he  is  of  the  most 
familiar  principles  and  facts  of  the  science  he  would  over- 
turn. 

Such  misconceptions  of  geological  reasoning  are  not  con- 
fined to  this  writer.  Illustrations  might  be  multiplied  indefi- 
nitely; but  we  will  content  ourselves  with  only  one  more. 
Many  efforts  have  been  made  to  estimate  approximately  the 
length  of  time  necessary  for  the  excavation  of  the  gorge 
below  the  falls  of  Niagara,  and  for  the  formation  of  the 
delta  of  the  Mississippi,  two  of  the  most  recent  events  in 
geological  history.    Lyell,  after  pointing  out  the  great  diffi- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


405 


culties  in  the  way  of  reaching  any  trustworthy  result,  con- 
jectures that  perhaps  thirty-five  thousand  years  may  have 
been  required  for  the  former,  and  one  hundred  thousand  or 
more  for  the  latter.  Now,  anti-geologists  have  spent  much 
labor  in  repeating  the  statements  of  geologists,  that  the  data 
on  which  these  calculations  are  based  are  not  perfectly 
determined  or  determinable ;  and  not  infrequently  they  point 
out  additional  grounds  of  doubt,  which  are  somewhat  amus- 
ing. They  have  intimated,  for  example,  that  the  transport- 
ing power  of  the  Mississippi  is  usually  greatly  underrated, 
inasmuch  as  the  water  near  the  rough,  uneven  bottom  of  the 
channel,  flows  more  rapidly  than  that  near  the  surface.  It 
is  to  no  purpose  to  refer  to  the  principle  in  hydraulics,  that 
the  velocity  varies  inversely  as  the  friction,  and  therefore 
that  the  velocity  must  be  greatest  near  the  surface ;  for,  in 
this  discussion,  the  opinions  of  illiterate  boatmen,  who 
have  no  means  whatever  of  testing  the  accuracy  of  their 
impressions,  are  always  preferred  to  the  most  careful  meas- 
urements of  engineers  and  men  of  science,  and  even  to  a 
well-established  law  in  physics.  When,  by  these  means,  it 
has  been  shown  that  such  calculations,  confessedly  only  con- 
jectural, can  not  determine  the  exact  number  of  years 
required  by  a  given  series  of  events,  it  is  maintained  that 
the  worthlessness  of  all  geological  reasoning  concerning 
time  has  been  demonstrated.  It  is  forgotten  or  unknown 
that  the  geological  argument  is  cumulative;  and  that  it 
might  be  admitted  that,  instead  of  one  hundred  thousand,  or 
thirty-five  thousand  years,  only  one  thousand  or  less  may 
have  been  occupied  with  these  events;  and  yet  that  the 
proof  remains  irresistible  that  the  time  required  for  these, 
together  with  other  events  necessarily  anterior  to  them,  was 
ten  thousand  years  or  more. 

It  is  some  times  assumed  that  if  men  of  acknowledged 
ability,  and  of  well-trained  reasoning  powers,  fall  into  such 
palpable  errors,  after  much  study  of  the  subject,  the  fault 
must  be  in  the  subject;  it  can  not  possess  the  scientific  char- 
acter claimed  for  it.  There  might  be  some  weight  in  this 
objection,  if  it  were  true  that  classes  of  educated  men,  after 
due  examination,  fail  to  comprehend  the  principles  of  geol- 


406 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


ogy,  and  to  acknowledge  the  validity  of  the  evidence  by 
which  they  are  sustained ;  but  this  has  not  been  asserted  of 
any  class  except  that  of  ministers;  and  we  think  we  have 
shown  that  it  is  not  true  of  it.  We  hope  we  have  effectually 
freed  the  class  to  which  we  belong  from  this  aspersion  upon 
its  intelligence  and  its  ability  to  reason.  That  there  are 
individuals  of  this  and  other  classes  who  reject  the  teachings 
of  geology — individuals,  too,  of  the  highest  attainments,  and 
whose  judgment  we  value  most  highly  in  other  directions — 
is  admitted.  We  do  not  profess  to  explain  these  cases, 
except  so  far  as  they  can  be  fairly  referred  to  the  influence 
of  a  predetermination  to  reach  a  certain  conclusion,  what- 
ever facts  may  oppose;  and  we  do  not  feel  called  upon 
to  explain  them,  any  more  than  to  say  why  it  is  that  many 
intelligent,  honest,  and  learned  men,  who  have  spent  their 
lives  in  studying  church  government,  prefer  prelacy  or  inde- 
pendency to  presbytery;  or  why  even  honest  and  learned 
men,  of  confessedly  high  logical  powers,  prefer  popery  to 
protestantism.  The  difficulty  is  certainly  not  in  the  science ; 
for  the  labors  of  modern  geologists  have  so  simplified  it,  and 
have  placed  the  evidence  of  its  leading  principles  in  so  clear 
a  light,  that  in  order  to  acquire  a  knowledge  of  it,  no  very 
great  amount  of  study  is  needed.  It  has  not  yet  reached 
that  degree  of  simplicity  that  its  principles,  and  the  evidence 
on  which  they  rest,  can  be  fully  presented  in  an  evening 
lecture,  any  more  than  a  course  of  Christian  theology,  and 
the  evidences  on  which  it  rests,  can  be  similarly  compressed. 
But  it  has  reached  such  order  and  simplicity  that  it  is  with 
propriety  included  among  the  subjects  of  study  in  all  our 
higher  seminaries  of  learning.  That,  unlike  all  other 
sciences,  it  will  ever  be  able  to  force  conviction  upon  the 
unwilling  mind,  can  hardly  be  expected.  This  has  been 
done,  and  can  be  done,  by  no  system  of  truth,  not  even  by 
Christianity  itself. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


407 


An  Examination  of  Certain  Recent  Assaults  on 
Physical  Science. 


Theological  Education.  A  Memoir  for  the  consideration  of 
the  General  Assembly  of  1866,  in  Memphis.  Central  Pres- 
byterian, Oct.  3,  10,  17,  24,  and  31,  1866. 

Memorial  from  the  Rev.  Robert  L.  Dabney,  D.  D.,  on  Theo- 
logical Education.  Presented  to  the  General  Assembly  at 
Mobile,  May  21,  1869. 

Syllabus  and  Notes  of  the  Course  of  Systematic  and  Polemic 
Theology  taught  in  Union  Theological  Seminary,  Virginia. 
By  R.  L.  Dabney,  D.  D.  Published  by  the  Students.  Rich- 
mond :  Shepperson  &  Graves,  Printers.  1871. 

A  Caution  against  Anti-Christian  Science.  A  Sermon  on 
Colossians  ii.  8.  Preached  in  the  Synod  of  Virginia,  Octo- 
ber 20,  1871,  by  Robert  L.  Dabney,  D.  D.  This  sermon  is 
printed  by  request  of  Lieutenant-Governor  John  L.  Marye, 
Major  T.  J.  Kirkpatrick,  George  D.  Gray,  J.  N.  Gordon,  F. 
Johnson,  and  others,  elders  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
Richmond:  James  E.  Goode,  Printer.  1871. 

The  "Memoir"  on  Theological  Education  published  in  the 
Central  Presbyterian  as  intended  for  the  consideration  of  the 
Memphis  General  Assembly,  was  not  brought  to  the  notice 
of  that  body;  but  in  a  somewhat  modified  form  was  pre- 
sented as  a  "Memorial"  to  the  General  Assembly  which  met 
at  Mobile  in  1869.  It  was  respectfully  received  by  the 
Assembly,  but  was  not  read.  On  the  recommendation  of 
the  Committee  on  Theological  Seminaries,  it  was  referred 
to  the  Faculties  and  Directors  of  the  Columbia  and  Union 
Theological  Seminaries,  with  the  request  that  they  report 
the  results  of  their  deliberations  to  the  Assembly  of  1870. 
The  Columbia  Faculty  prepared  and  submitted  a  report ;  but 
nothing  was  ever  brought  before  the  Assembly  on  the  sub- 
ject, until  at  last,  in  1872,  a  committee  to  which  it  had  been 
intrusted  was  at  its  own  request  discharged.    The  titles  of 


408 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


the  other  two  publications  named  sufficiently  indicate  their 
general  nature. 

In  these  Memorials,  Lectures,  and  Sermon,  their  author, 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Dabney,  Professor  of  Theology  in  Union 
Theological  Seminary,  has  been  keeping  up  for  a  number 
of  years  an  unremitting  warfare  against  physical  science. 
In  the  weekly  journal,  in  a  memorial  presented  to  our 
highest  ecclesiastical  court,  in  lectures  to  those  who  are  to 
be  ministers  in  our  Church,  in  the  stately  volume  now  pub- 
lished which  contains  the  substance  of  these  lectures,  in  a 
sermon  preached  before  the  large  and  influential  Synod  of 
Virginia,  a  sermon  which  at  the  request  of  leading  gentle- 
men in  that  Synod  has  been  sent  forth  in  printed  form  to 
thousands  who  did  not  hear  it  delivered  with  the  living 
voice — in  all  these  and  in  other  ways  he  has  been  sounding 
forth  the  alarm,  calling  upon  the  Church,  as  far  as  his  voice 
and  pen  can  reach,  to  rise  in  arms  against  physical  science 
as  the  mortal  enemy  of  all  the  Christian  holds  dear,  and 
to  take  no  rest  until  this  infidel  and  atheistic  foe  has  been 
utterly  destroyed.  With  the  exception  of  a  notice  of  the 
sermon  published  in  the  Central  Presbyterian,  not  a  word  has 
been  publicly  uttered  in  opposition  to  his  views  during  all 
these  years;  and  therefore  it  would  not  be  strange  if  they 
should  come  to  be  regarded  by  multitudes  as  the  doctrine 
of  our  Church  and  of  Christianity  universally,  seeing  they 
are  proclaimed  with  such  persistent  earnestness,  by  one 
occupying  so  high  an  official  position  in  the  Church,  and 
almost  without  being  called  in  question.  Looking  upon 
physical  science,  as  Dr.  Dabney  does,  as  "vain,  deceitful 
philosophy,"  by  which  "incautious  souls  are  in  danger  of 
being  despoiled  of  their  redemption,"  he  deserves  commen- 
dation for  his  zeal  in  seizing  every  opportunity  and  every 
channel  of  access  to  the  minds  of  men  to  warn  them  of  their 
danger,  and  thus  to  endeavor  to  save  them  from  being 
despoiled  of  eternal  life  by  physical  science.  Whether  this 
commendation  should  be  confined  to  his  zeal,  and  whether 
it  may  not  be  a  zeal  without  knowledge,  can  better  be  deter- 
mined after  a  careful  examination  of  his  teachings. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


409 


Believing  that  Dr.  Dabney's  views  respecting  physical 
science,  as  set  forth  in  these  writings,  are  not  only  not  true, 
but  also  dangerous,  because  certain  to  lead  to  the  rejection 
of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  so  far  as  he  is  here  regarded  as  their 
true  interpreter,  the  writer  feels  impelled  to  utter  his  dissent, 
and  to  attempt  to  show  that  true  Christianity  does  not  allow 
us  to  accept  such  championship.  To  one  who  believes  firmly 
in  every  word  of  the  Bible  as  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
as  the  writer  does  with  all  his  heart,  its  truth  is  too  precious 
to  allow  him  to  be  indifferent  to  a  professed  defence  of  this 
truth  which  is  based  upon  principles  which  must  inevitably 
lead  to  its  rejection.  It  is  with  the  sincerest  reluctance  that 
an  examination  of  these  principles  is  now  entered  on,  seeing 
the  result  must  be  to  prove  them  wholly  erroneous  and 
fraught  with  peril  to  all  who  adopt  them  and  logically  follow 
them  to  their  necessary  results.  It  would  be  vastly  more 
gratifying  to  cooperate  with  Dr.  Dabney  in  defending  the 
truth  against  assaults  from  without;  but  external  assaults 
against  our  impregnable  citadel  are  harmless  in  comparison 
with  these  efforts  on  the  part  of  those  within,  which,  if 
it  were  possible  for  them  to  be  successful,  would  undermine 
its  walls  and  tear  up  its  foundations,  reducing  the  fair  and 
hitherto  unshaken  structure  to  a  mass  of  shapeless  ruins. 
Hence  there  seems  to  be  no  course  left  but  for  the  truth's 
sake  to  show  the  unsoundness  of  Dr.  Dabney's  opinions, 
however  much  the  writer  would  prefer  to  stand  by  his  side 
making  common  cause  with  him  against  error  wherever 
found. 

Dr.  Dabney's  attacks  on  physical  science  in  the  different 
publications  named,  are  not  made  in  the  same  order ;  hence 
in  the  present  examination  of  their  real  strength,  they  will 
be  taken  up  without  special  reference  to  the  order  followed 
in  any  one  of  them. 

In  the  Sermon,  before  reaching  the  main  subject,  Dr. 
Dabney  refers  to  the  sad  consequences  of  the  fall  of  man; 
and  with  the  intention  of  preventing  our  belief  in  physical 
science,  insists  that  fallen  minds  can  never  reach  results  free 
from  uncertainty  and  error,  except  in  the  "exact  sciences  of 
magnitudes."    He  says : 


410 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


"Every  Christian  should  be  familiar  with  the  fact  that 
the  human  mind,  as  well  as  heart,  has  been  impaired  by  the 
fall.  Men  'so  became  dead  in  sin,  and  wholly  denied  in  all 
the  faculties  and  parts  of  soul  and  body.'  From  the  nature 
of  the  case,  the  misguided  intellect  is  unconscious  of  its 
own  vice ;  for  consciousness  of  it  would  expel  it.  Its  nature 
is  to  cause  him  who  is  deceived  to  think  that  error  is  truth, 
and  its  power  is  in  masking  itself  under  that  honest  guise. 
Why,  then,  need  we  wonder  that  every  age  must  needs  have 
its  vain  and  deceitful  philosophy,  and  'oppositions  of  science 
falsely  so-called?'  And  how  can  the  Christian  expect  that 
uninspired  science  will  ever  be  purged  of  uncertainty  and 
error,  by  any  organon  of  investigation  invented  by  man? 
Even  if  the  organon  were  absolute,  pure  truth,  its  application 
by  fallen  minds  must  always  insure  in  the  results  more  or 
less  of  error,  except  in  those  exact  sciences  of  magnitudes, 
where  the  definiteness  of  the  predictions  and  fewness  of  the 
premises  leave  no  room  for  serious  mistake/'   Sermon,  p.  I. 

He  then  illustrates  these  principles  by  referring  to  the 
admitted  fallibility  of  church  courts,  and  justly  extols  the 
Prophet  and  Teacher,  Christ,  as  an  infallible  guide. 

In  all  that  he  says  on  this  point,  there  is  some  truth ;  as, 
indeed,  there  is  always  some  truth  in  every  dangerous 
error.  But  before  settling  down  in  despair  of  ever  being 
able  to  gain  uninspired  knowledge,  before  yielding  to  the 
agony  of  universal  doubt  with  regard  to  everything  except 
mathematical  truth,  it  becomes  us  to  inquire  whether  these 
are  true  principles,  or  errors  rendered  dangerous  to  the 
unsuspecting  by  the  intermixture  of  truth  which  they  con- 
tain. 

Perhaps  the  easiest  way  to  see  that  Dr.  Dabney  misap- 
plies the  doctrine  of  the  fall  is  to  observe  that  if  we  embrace 
the  skepticism  which  he  recommends  as  to  the  results  of  the 
application  of  our  God-given  reason  to  the  works  of  God's 
hands,  we  must  be  equally  skeptical  as  to  God's  word.  The 
Sacred  Scriptures,  we  assert  and  believe,  are  absolutely  true 
in  every  part;  but  are  not  the  facts  presented  to  us  in 
God's  works,  which  "uninspired"  science  investigates, 
equally  true?   When  it  is  admitted  that  the  facts  in  them- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


411 


selves  are  absolutely  true,  but  that  we  are  so  liable  to  mis- 
understand their  real  meaning  that  we  cannot  trust  our 
conclusions,  we  ask  wherein  we  are  differently  situated  with 
reference  to  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Our  minds  are  equally 
fallen  when  we  inquire  into  the  meaning  of  statements  in 
the  Scriptures,  and  when  we  inquire  into  the  meaning  of 
facts  in  nature — that  is,  in  God's, material  universe;  and  if 
we  must  regard  ourselves  as  incapable  of  arriving  at  a 
knowledge  of  the  truth,  if  we  must  be  skeptics  in  the  one 
case,  we  must  be  in  the  other  also.  It  is  to  be  observed  that 
Theology  is  as  much  a  human  science  as  Geology  or  any 
other  branch  of  natural  science.  The  facts  which  form  the 
basis  of  the  science  of  Theology  are  found  in  God's  word; 
those  which  form  the  basis  of  the  science  of  Geology  are 
found  in  his  works ;  but  the  science  in  both  cases  is  the  work 
of  the  human  mind.  The  Bible  was  indeed  given  specific- 
ally for  the  instruction  of  man,  while  the  material  universe 
was  not  so  directly  created  for  this  purpose ;  and  the  lessons 
taught  in  the  Bible  are  of  infinitely  higher  value  than  those 
which  we  learn  from  nature ;  but  still  the  science  of  Theol- 
ogy as  a  science  is  equally  human  and  uninspired  with  the 
science  of  Geology — the  facts  in  both  cases  are  divine,  the 
sciences  based  upon  them  human.  Unless,  therefore,  we  are 
ready  to  give  up  the  certainty  of  our  knowledge  of  the 
great  central  truths  of  Theology,  we  must  reject  the  sug- 
gestion that  we  can  never  become  certain  of  anything  in 
Geology,  or  other  branches  of  natural  science.  With  such 
grounds  for  thinking  that  Dr.  Dabney  misapplies  the  doc- 
trine of  the  fall,  it  is  not  necessary  to  show  that  it  is  clearly 
implied  in  a  large  part  of  the  Bible's  teachings  that  we  are 
capable  of  gaining  a  knowledge  of  the  truth  by  the  use  of 
our  reason. 

It  is  singular  that  Dr.  Dabney  should  have  fallen  into 
this  error,  since  he  has  so  properly  condemned  it  in  his  Lec- 
tures. Speaking  of  Natural  Theology,  which  is  the  science 
that  treats  of  the  nature  and  attributes  of  God  as  revealed  in 
the  same  works  which  all  natural  science  investigates,  Dr. 
Dabney  says:  "Some  old  divines  were  wont  to  deny  that 
there  was  any  science  of  Natural  Theology,  and  to  say  that 


412 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


without  revelation  man  would  not  naturally  learn  its  first 
truth.  .  .  .  These  divines  seem  to  fear,  lest,  by  granting  a 
Natural  Theology,  they  should  grant  too  much  to  natural 
reason ;  a  fear  ungrounded  and  extreme.  They  are  in  danger 
of  a  worse  consequence :  reducing  man's  capacity  for  receiv- 
ing divine  verities  so  low  that  the  rational  skeptic  will  be 
able  to  turn  upon  them,  and  say :  'Then  by  so  inept  a  crea- 
ture, the  guarantees  of  a  true  revelation  cannot  be  certainly 
apprehended.'  .  .  .  Some  profess  to  disbelieve  axioms,  as 
Hume  that  of  causation;  but  this  is  far  from  proving  man 
incapable  of  a  natural  science  of  induction."  Lectures  on 
Theology,  p.  6. 

Dr.  Dabney  here  so  satisfactorily  disproves  the  doctrine 
of  his  Sermon  that  we  might  perhaps  safely  leave  this  point 
without  further  remark.  But  as  he  intimates  in  the  second 
paragraph  that  we  have  "infallible  guidance"  in  the  one  case 
which  we  lack  in  the  other,  this  intimation  must  be  briefly 
noticed.  The  question  will  not  be  discussed  whether  the 
heathen  are  really  "without  excuse"  for  having  failed  rightly 
to  apply  capacities  which  they  do  not  possess,  or  whether 
"the  invisible  things  of  God  from  the  creation  of  the  world" 
can  be  "clearly  seen"  by  unregenerate  men  without  the  guid- 
ance of  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  granting  that  our  reason  could 
not  form  one  correct  judgment  on  any  subject  without 
divine  guidance,  would  Dr.  Dabney  maintain  that  God 
denies  this  guidance  to  his  children  when  they  devoutly 
seek  it  in  the  investigation  of  his  works?  Do  they  become 
orphans,  do  they  forfeit  their  right  to  their  Father's  guid- 
ance, when  they  seek  to  know  more  fully  how  the  heavens 
declare  the  glory  of  God,  how  the  firmament  sheweth  his 
handiwork?  when  they  eagerly  listen  as  day  unto  day  utter- 
eth  speech,  and  strive  to  gain  a  fuller  measure  of  the  knowl- 
edge which  night  unto  night  showeth,  though  there  is  no 
speech  nor  language,  and  though  they  utter  no  audible 
voice?  Surely  he  would  not  take  this  ground.  Let  us  not 
fear  to  "speak  to  the  earth,"  for  "it  shall  teach  us;"  even 
"the  fishes  of  the  sea  shall  declare"  the  truth  to  us.  If  indeed 
the  "Lord  rejoices  in  his  works,"  and  if  he  would  have  us 
"sing  praise  to  him  as  long  as  we  live,"  contemplating  his 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


413 


glory  as  reflected  in  them,  he  will  not  refuse  us  his  fatherly 
hand  as  we  walk  forth  seeking  to  drink  in  more  and  more 
of  the  wisdom  in  which  he  has  made  them  all,  or  to  see  more 
and  more  clearly  the  value  of  the  riches  of  which  his  earth  is 
full. 

Thus  it  appears  that  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should 
be  blighted  by  the  cheerless  skepticism  which  Dr.  Dabney 
inculcates ;  on  the  contrary,  we  can  with  certainty  know 
something,  and  as  loving  children  we  should  labor  to  know 
much,  of  the  glorious  workmanship  of  our  heavenly  Father, 
of  the  wonderful  creation  which  he  has  brought  into  exist- 
ence through  his  Son. 

After  his  attempt  to  show  that  we  can  know  nothing 
with  certainty  except  mathematics  and  the  Christian  reli- 
gion, Dr.  Dabney  endeavors  to  excite  hostility  against  physi- 
cal science  by  showing  the  wicked  and  dangerous  character 
of  something  else  which  has  nothing  whatever  in  common 
with  physical  science.  He  very  correctly  describes  the  vain 
and  deceitful  philosophy  against  which  the  apostle  Paul 
warns  the  Colossians,  as  "a  shadowy  philosophic  theory — 
a  mixture  of  Oriental,  Rabbinical,  and  Greek  mysticism, 
which  peopled  heaven  with  a  visionary  hierarchy  of  semi- 
divine  beings,  referred  the  Messiah  to  their  class,  and 
taught  men  to  expect  salvation  from  their  intercession,  com- 
bined with  Jewish  asceticisms  and  will-worship."  He  says 
further,  that  "the  apostle  solemnly  reminded  them  that  this 
philosophy  was  vain  and  deceitful ;  and,  moreover,  that  the 
price  of  preferring  it  to  the  Christian  system  was  the  loss 
of  the  soul."  All  that  he  says  on  this  point  is  very  true: 
the  vain  philosophy  condemned  had  no  observed  facts  for  its 
basis,  and  even  its  assumptions  were  not  connected  together 
by  principles  according  to  which  right  reason  acts  ;  therefore 
it  should  be  rejected  by  all  who  love  the  truth.  And  as  it 
was  not  only  not  true,  but  was  also  deadly  in  its  effects 
upon  all  who  embraced  it,  inasmuch  as  it  taught  them  to 
look  for  salvation  elsewhere  than  to  the  only  Saviour  of 
mankind,  the  warnings  against  it  could  not  be  too  earnest. 

But  how  does  Dr.  Dabney  apply  all  this  to  the  subject  of 
his  discourse?    In  a  most  remarkable  way — by  nicknaming 


414 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


physical  science  "vain,  deceitful  philosophy."  Although  the 
false  and  deadly  philosophy  which  is  spoken  of  by  St.  Paul 
confessedly  had  no  observed  facts  for  its  foundation,  while 
physical  science  is  based  exclusively  upon  facts  which  any 
one  may  verify  for  himself ;  and  although  in  the  former  case 
the  fantastic  guesses  were  woven  into  a  fanciful  and  vision- 
ary scheme  in  defiance  of  reason,  while  physical  science 
arranges  its  facts  and  deduces  inferences  from  them  in 
accordance  with  intuitive  principles  which  are  believed  by 
all — yet  Dr.  Dabney  warns  us  against  physical  science 
because  the  philosophy  which  was  seeking  to  spoil  the 
Colossians  was  vain  and  deceitful !  It  is  as  if  one  should 
prove  to  us  the  deceitful  and  deadly  character  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion  by  depicting  to  us  the  abominable  rites  of  some 
ancient  Pagan  religion,  or  the  absurdities  and  atrocities  of 
false  religions  which  still  enslave  myriads  of  our  race  in  the 
dark  places  of  the  earth.  It  is  even  worse;  for  there  is  no 
religion  so  utterly  false  that  it  does  not  contain  some  truths 
taught  by  Christianity ;  but  physical  science  has  not  one  sin- 
gle point  in  common  with  that  with  which  Dr.  Dabney 
classes  it.  He  could  not  possibly  have  made  a  greater  mis- 
take than  he  has  done  in  regarding  as  similar  two  things 
which  are  so  utterly  unlike. 

Dr.  Dabney  concludes  his  introduction,  which  is  devoted 
to  exciting  prejudice  against  physical  science,  as  follows : 

"The  prevalent  vain,  deceitful  philosophy  of  our  day  is 
not  mystical,  but  physical  and  sensuous.  It  affects  what  it 
calls  'positivism.'  It  even  makes  the  impossible  attempt  to 
give  the  mind's  philosophy  a  sensualistic  explanation.  Its 
chief  study  is  to  ascertain  the  laws  of  material  nature  and 
of  animal  life.  It  refers  everything  to  their  power  and 
dominion ;  and  from  them  pretends  to  contradict  the  Scrip- 
tural account  of  the  origin  of  the  earth  and  man.  Does  it 
profess  not  to  interfere  with  the  region  of  spiritual  truth, 
because  concerned  about  matter?  We  find,  on  the  contrary, 
that  physical  science  always  has  some  tendency  to  become 
anti-theological.  This  tendency  is  to  be  accounted  for  by 
two  facts :  One  is,  that  man  is  a  depraved  creature,  whose 
natural  disposition  is  enmity  against  God.   Hence  this  lean- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


415 


ing  away  from  him,  in  many  worldly  minds,  perhaps  semi- 
conscious, which  does  'not  like  to  retain  God  in  its  knowl- 
edge.' The  other  explanation  is,  that  these  physical  sciences 
continually  tend  to  exalt  naturalism — their  pride  of  success 
in  tracing  natural  causes  tempts  them  to  refer  everything  to 
them,  and  thus  to  substitute  them  for  a  spiritual,  personal 
God.  Again,  then,  is  it  time  for  the  watchman  on  the  walls 
of  Zion  to  utter  the  apostle's  'beware.'  Again  are  incau- 
tious souls  in  danger  of  being  despoiled  of  their  redemption 
by  Vain,  deceitful  philosophy.'  "   Sermon,  p.  2. 

In  this  paragraph  it  is  correctly  stated  that  the  chief  study 
of  natural  science  is  "to  ascertain  the  laws  of  material  nature 
and  animal  life."  Beyond  this  there  is  hardly  an  accurate 
statement  in  it.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  students  of  this 
science  do  use  their  senses  to  ascertain  facts ;  they  do  not 
invent  them,  or  guess  at  them,  as  we  shall  hereafter  see  is 
Dr.  Dabney's  habit  when  he  is  acting  the  part  of  a  natural 
philosopher.  If  it  is  meant  by  "sensuous"  and  "sensualistic" 
that  the  senses  are  used  in  observation,  then  no  objection 
can  be  made.  But  if,  as  many  readers  would  understand 
them,  these  words  are  intended  to  convey  a  meaning  involv- 
ing the  condemnation  of  physical  science,  nothing  could  be 
more  inexact.  Further,  his  statement  that  it  "makes  the 
impossible  attempt  to  give  the  mind's  philosophy  a  sensual- 
istic  explanation,"  is  equally  without  foundation.  It  is 
doubtless  true  that  students  of  physical  science  have  made 
the  attempt  here  attributed  to  them ;  just  as  leading  Presby- 
terian theologians,  personally  known  to  Dr.  Dabney,  have 
taught  that  "every  obstacle  to  salvation,  arising  from  the 
character  and  government  of  God,  is  actually  removed,  and 
was  intended  to  be  removed,  that  thus  every  one  of  Adam's 
race  might  be  saved,"  and  that  "the  Father  covenants  to  give 
to  the  Son,  'as  a  reward  for  the  travail  of  his  soul,'  a  part  of 
those  for  whom  he  dies."  But  as  this  is  not  the  doctrine  of 
Presbyterians,  so  physical  science  does  not  undertake  to 
"give  the  mind's  philosophy  a  sensualistic  explanation," 
even  though  some  scientific  men  may  have  attempted  this 
impossibility.  On  the  contrary,  the  leading  representatives 
of  natural  science  maintain  that  the  connexion  between 


416 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


mind  and  matter  lies  wholly  beyond  the  limits  of  that 
science;  that  it  does  not  now  know,  and  it  can  never  here- 
after know,  anything  concerning  this  subject.  The  doc- 
trine of  scientific  men  was  well  stated  last  August  by  Pro- 
fessor Du  Bois-Reymond,  a  leading  professor  in  the  Univer- 
sity of  Berlin,  in  a  discourse  before  the  German  Association 
of  Men  of  Science  assembled  at  Leipzig.  No  one  who 
knows  this  eminent  man  of  science  will  suspect  him  of  an 
inclination  to  claim  too  little  for  natural  science,  or  any- 
thing at  all  for  revelation.  He  says:  "That  it  is  utterly 
impossible,  and  must  ever  remain  so,  to  understand  the 
higher  intellectual  processes  from  the  movements  of  the 
brain-atoms,  supposing  these  to  have  become  known,  need 
not  be  further  shown.  Yet,  as  already  observed,  it  is  not  at 
all  necessary  to  give  greater  weight  to  our  arguments.  .  .  . 
In  this  we  have  the  measure  of  our  real  capacity,  or  rather 
of  our  weakness.  Thus  our  knowledge  of  nature  is  inclosed 
between  these  two  boundaries,  which  are  eternally  imposed 
upon  it :  on  the  one  side  by  the  inability  to  comprehend  mat- 
ter and  force,  and  on  the  other  to  refer  mental  processes  to 
material  conditions.  Within  these  limits  the  student  of 
nature  is  lord  and  master ;  he  analyses  and  he  reconstructs, 
and  no  one  knows  the  boundaries  of  his  knowledge  and  his 
power;  beyond  these  limits  he  goes  not  now,  nor  can  he 
ever  go."  Ueber  die  Grenzen  des  Naturerkennens.  Zweite 
Auflage,  pp.  27-29.  Thus  modestly  and  truthfully  is  the 
real  position  of  science  set  forth. 

It  cannot  fail  to  be  the  cause  of  amazement  as  well  as  of 
deep  regret,  that  Dr.  Dabney  should  maintain  the  position 
which  is  to  be  next  noticed.  Having  taught  that  we  can 
never  arrive  at  any  certain  knowledge  of  nature,  that  physi- 
cal science  is  vain  and  deceitful  philosophy  ready  to  despoil 
incautious  souls  of  their  redemption,  he  caps  the  climax  by 
asserting  that  "physical  science  always  has  some  tendency 
to  become  anti-theological"  (Sermon,  p.  2)  ;  that  the  "ten- 
dencies of  geologists"  are  "atheistic"  (Lectures,  p.  178)  ; 
that  the  "spirit  of  these  sciences  is  essentially  infidel  and 
rationalistic ;  they  are  arrayed,  in  all  their  phases,  on  the  side 
of  skepticism"  (Memoir  in  Central  Presbyterian,  October  31, 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


417 


1866)  ;  "this  is,  therefore,"  he  says,  "the  eternity  of  Natural- 
ism— it  is  Atheism.  And  such  is  the  perpetual  animus  of  mate- 
rial science,  especially  in  our  day"  (Lectures,  p.  179).  If 
he  had  confined  himself  to  saying  that  "the  tendency  of 
much  of  so-called  modern  science  is  skeptical/'  (Sermon,  p. 
5,)  he  might  easily  have  substantiated  this  assertion.  But 
from  the  passages  quoted,  it  is  seen  that  he  maintains  no 
such  partial  proposition ;  he  does  not  limit  himself  to  the 
assertion  that  "much  of  so-called"  but  not  real  "modern 
science  is  skeptical,"  but  boldly  proclaims  that  "the  spirit 
of  these  sciences  is  essentially  infidel  and  rationalistic  that 
"they  are  arrayed,  in  all  their  phases,  on  the  side  of  skepti- 
cism ;"  that  "their  perpetual  animus"  is  towards  "atheism." 
What  assertions  could  be  made  more  damaging  to  belief  in 
the  Scriptures  which  are  the  source  of  theology,  and  in  the 
existence  of  God  himself?  What  frightful  consequences 
must  necessarily  flow  from  the  general  reception  of  Dr. 
Dabney's  teachings  on  this  subject!  That  a  firm  believer 
in  the  Bible  could  say  that  the  systematic  study  of  God's 
works  always  tends  to  make  us  disbelieve  his  word,  and 
even  his  existence,  would  seem  incredible  but  for  the  sad 
evidence  here  presented.  In  such  an  opinion  of  God's  works 
may  perhaps  be  found  an  explanation  of  the  contemptuous 
scorn  of  the  epithets  which  Dr.  Dabney  employs  in  speaking 
of  the  "musty"  and  "rotten"  fossils.  (Sermon,  pp.  7  and  19.) 
Should  we  not  instead  listen  to  the  words,  "Remember  that 
thou  magnify  his  work  which  men  behold ;"  and  see  in  these 
"musty,"  "rotten"  fossils  rather  the  "medals  of  creation," 
and  from  them  and  all  the  other  wonderful  things  which 
God  has  made,  reverently  and  humbly  learn  his  glory  and 
power? 

Surely  the  statement  of  Dr.  Dabney's  teaching  on  this 
point  carries  with  it  its  own  refutation,  so  as  to  render 
further  arguments  to  refute  it  unnecessary.  It  has  often 
before  been  asserted  that  "ignorance  is  the  mother  of  devo- 
tion," but  this  has  been  repelled  as  a  slanderous  attack  upon 
our  faith  made  by  the  unbeliever;  it  could  not  have  been 
anticipated  that  it  would  receive  such  support  from  an 
enlightened  teacher  of  our  holy  and  true  religion. 


27— w 


418 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


The  "two  facts"  by  which  Dr.  Dabney  would  account  for 
the  supposed  evil  tendency  of  physical  science — depravity 
and  pride — are  of  universal  application  to  all  men,  whatever 
their  pursuits.  Those  who  study  natural  science,  equally  with 
metaphysicians,  theologians,  lawyers,  physicians,  farmers, 
etc.,  are  men;  and  men  unrenewed  by  the  Spirit  of  God 
have  a  "natural  disposition  which  is  enmity  against  God." 
So  "pride"  is  among  the  "evil  thoughts  which  proceed  out 
of  the  heart  of  men."  And  since  students  of  physical  science 
are  men,  whatever  may  be  truly  said  of  the  human  race  may 
be  said  of  them.  But  what  right  has  Dr.  Dabney  to  single 
out  this  class  and  represent  it  as  made  up  of  sinners  above 
all  other  men?  It  would  be  just  as  fair  and  as  true  to 
assert  the  anti-Christian  tendency  of  a  careful  study  of  the 
Bible,  of  theology,  and  of  the  evidences  of  Christianity,  and 
to  attempt  to  prove  the  assertion  by  quoting  the  example 
of  Renan,  De  Wette,  Ewald,  Theodore  Parker,  Strauss, 
Baur,  and  a  host  of  others  like  them,  as  it  is  to  assert  the 
anti-theological  and  atheistic  tendency  of  the  study  of  physi- 
cal science  because  infidel  sentiments  may  be  found  in  the 
writings  of  some  diligent  students  of  nature — it  would  be  no 
more  fair  or  true,  and  no  less.  It  is  very  strange  that  it 
should  have  escaped  the  notice  of  Dr.  Dabney  that  the 
dangerous  tendency  is  not  at  all  in  the  study,  but  wholly  in 
the  student. 

Having  shown,  as  he  supposes,  that  physical  science  never 
can  reach  undoubted  truth  and  that  its  study  in  various 
ways  endangers  the  soul's  salvation,  Dr.  Dabney  proceeds  in 
his  Sermon  to  enumerate  some  of  the  "continual  encroach- 
ments" which  "physicists"  are  "making  upon  the  Scripture 
teachings."   He  says : 

"I  perceive  this  in  the  continual  encroachments  which 
they  make  upon  the  Scripture  teachings.  Many  of  you,  my 
brethren,  can  remember  the  time  when  this  modern  impulse 
did  not  seek  to  push  us  any  further  from  the  old  and  current 
understanding  of  the  Bible  cosmogony,  than  to  assert  the 
existence  of  a  Pre-Adamite  earth,  with  its  own  distinct 
fauna  and  flora,  now  all  entombed  in  the  fossiliferous  strata 
of  rocks.  .  .  . 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


419 


"But  now.  we  are  currently  required  by  physicists  to 
admit,  that  the  six  days'  work  of  God  was  not  done  in  six 
days,  but  in  six  vast  tracts  of  time. 

"That  the  deluge  did  not  cover  'all  the  high  hills  which 
were  under  the  whole  heaven/  but  only  a  portion  of  central 
Asia. 

"That  man  has  been  living  upon  the  globe,  in  its  present 
dispensation,  for  more  than  twenty  thousand  years,  to  say 
the  least,  as  appears  by  some  fossil  remains  of  him  and  his 
handiwork ;  and  that  the  existence  of  the  species  is  not  lim- 
ited to  the  five  thousand  nine  hundred  years  assigned  it  by 
the  Mosaic  Chronology. 

"That  the  'nations  were  not  divided  in  the  earth  after  the 
flood  by  the  families  of  the  sons  of  Noah ;'  and  that  God  did 
not  'make  of  one  blood  all  nations  of  men  for  to  dwell  on 
all  the  face  of  the  earth' ;  but  that  anatomy  and  ethnology 
show  there  are  several  distinct  species  having  separate 
origins. 

"That  God  did  not  create  a  finished  world  of  sea  and  land, 
but  only  a  fire-mist,  or  incandescent,  rotating,  nebulous 
mass,  which  condensed  itself  into  a  world. 

"And  last,  that  man  is  a  development  from  the  lowest 
type  of  animal  life."    Sermon,  pp.  3,  4. 

Before  examining  in  detail  the  points  embraced  in  this 
enumeration,  it  may  be  remarked  that  the  Synod  of  Virginia, 
before  which  the  Sermon  was  delivered,  must  have  contained 
many  patriarchs  of  almost  antediluvian  years,  since  their 
memories  reached  back  to  the  time  when  only  one  of  the 
alleged  "encroachments"  had  been  made.  Bishop  Stilling- 
fleet,  in  the  seventeenth  century,  maintained  the  opinion  that 
the  flood  had  not  "been  over  the  whole  globe  of  the  earth ;" 
more  than  sixty  years  ago  both  the  development  hypothesis 
and  the  nebular  hypothesis  had  their  vigorous  supporters; 
and  for  ages  the  antiquity  of  man  has  been  believed  by  some 
persons  to  be  greater  than  the  commonly  received  Mosaic 
Chronology  would  allow.  Hence,  Dr.  Dabney  either  had 
many  most  venerable  patriarchs  among  his  hearers,  or  else 
he  was  attributing  to  them  no  small  amount  of  ignorance 


420 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


as  to  the  extent  of  this  "modern  impulse,"  in  a  way  which 
was  not  very  flattering  to  their  intelligence. 

It  is  not  a  little  surprising  that  Dr.  Dabney,  supposing  him 
to  have  some  acquaintance  with  physical  science,  should 
have  erred  so  signally  in  this  formal  statement  of  what  he 
regards  as  the  teachings  of  science.  He  is  right  as  to  the 
first  point — geology  does  teach,  as  proved  beyond  the  pos- 
sibility of  reasonable  doubt,  that  the  earth  was  in  existence 
for  at  least  more  than  a  week  before  Adam ;  and  this  pre- 
Adamite  time  may  be  subdivided  into  six,  or  sixty,  or  any 
other  number  of  tracts,  without  affecting  the  geological 
truth.  But  when  it  is  divided  into  six  parts,  it  is  not  geology 
that  makes  the  division,  but  interpreters  of  the  Bible,  who 
think  (erroneously,  in  our  opinion)  that  the  narrative  in  the 
first  chapter  of  Genesis  refers  to  certain  periods  of  geological 
history.  But  science  does  not  "require  us  to  admit3'  one 
other  proposition  here  presented.  We  do  not  say  that  cer- 
tain scientific  men  have  not  made  the  statements  in  ques- 
tion; they  have  done  so,  just  as  certain  Christian  theolo- 
gians have  taught  that  bread  is  every  day  changed  into  the 
real  body  of  Christ,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  not  God,  that  God 
will  not  punish  sinners,  that  the  Bible  is  not  inspired,  etc. 
But  what  would  be  thought  of  one  who  would  caution  us 
against  believing  in  the  Christian  religion,  and  who  would 
enforce  the  caution  by  the  statement  that  "we  are  currently 
required  by  Christian  theologians  to  admit"  these  doctrines? 
We  are  now  concerned  only  with  Dr.  Dabney's  similar  state- 
ment as  to  the  teachings  of  science — not  even  turning  aside 
to  inquire  as  to  the  amount  of  possible  truth  in  each  or  any 
of  the  propositions. 

The  question  as  to  the  extent  of  the  deluge  is  one  of  bib- 
lical interpretation,  and  does  not  belong  to  any  department 
of  natural  science.  It  is  true  that,  if  the  Bible  narrative 
leaves  it  undecided,  natural  science  may  be  able  to  help  us 
to  determine  which  interpretation  is  the  more  probable ;  and 
we  may  properly  ask  its  help,  just  as  we  may  ask  the  help 
of  geography  in  deciding  the  situation  of  Melita,  if  it  is  not 
clearly  pointed  out  in  the  narrative  of  Paul's  shipwreck  on 
the  coast  of  that  island. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


421 


How  long  man  has  been  living  upon  the  globe,  science  has 
not  yet  succeeded  in  determining.  This  question  has  been 
under  discussion  amongst  scientific  men  for  a  long  time; 
and  within  the  last  twenty  or  thirty  years  many  facts  have 
been  observed  which  may  aid  in  answering  it;  but  no  con- 
clusion has  yet  been  reached  which  commands  the  assent  of 
the  scientific  world,  and  which  can  therefore  be  regarded  as 
taught  by  science. 

Further,  science  does  not  teach  the  plural  origin  of  the 
human  family.  It  is  true  that  many  eminent  men  of  science 
do  maintain  that  there  are  several  distinct  human  species ; 
but  there  are  many  others,  of  at  least  equal  eminence  and 
authority,  who  maintain  the  unity  of  the  human  species  on 
purely  scientific  grounds.  Not  to  refer  to  others,  a  recent 
writer,  whose  rank  as  a  scientific  man  is  shown  by  his  posi- 
tion as  President  of  the  French  Academy  of  Science,  M.  de 
Quatrefages,  has  written  an  admirable  work  to  prove  this 
unity  on  these  grounds.  (Unite  de  l'Espece  Humaine, 
1861.)  But  it  is  hardly  worth  while  to  proceed  with  the 
proof  that  the  plurality  of  origin  is  not  taught  by  science 
when  Dr.  Dabney  tells  us  in  almost  the  next  paragraph  that 
science  teaches  that  not  only  all  men.  but  all  animals  of 
whatever  grade,  have  a  common  origin ! 

That  science  does  not  teach  the  nebular  hypothesis,  is 
sufficiently  evident  from  the  use  of  the  term  "hypothesis." 
"Hypothesis"  is  exactly  equivalent  to  "supposition;"  and 
by  speaking  of  Herschel's  and  Laplace's  suggestions  as  to 
the  possible  origin  of  the  universe  as  a  "supposition,"  scien- 
tific men  have  shown  their  great  care  to  avoid  having  these 
suggestions  regarded  in  any  other  light.  Of  course  Dr. 
Dabney  knows  the  meaning  of  this  anglicised  Greek  word ; 
and  therefore  it  is  surprising  that  he  should  represent 
"physicists  as  requiring  us  to  admit'''  what  they  are  careful 
to  call  a  mere  "supposition.'''  He  is  fully  aware  that  this  is 
the  term  applied,  as  he  shows  by  his  own  use  of  it  in  his 
Lectures  and  Sermons.  (Lectures,  p.  178.  line  33  ;  Sermon, 
p.  10,  line  25.) 

Similar  remarks  would  apply  to  the  last  item  in  Dr.  Dab- 
ney's  enumeration  of  anti-Christian  error — the  development 


422 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


hypothesis.  But  to  prove  that  "physicists  do  not  require 
us  to  admit"  this  supposition,  it  may  be  enough  in  this 
instance  to  quote  the  following  truthful  observations  from 
Dr.  Dabney's  Lectures :  "The  attempt  to  account  for  them" 
(namely,  "the  beginning  of  genera")  "by  the  development 
theory  (Chambers  or  Darwin),  is  utterly  repudiated  by  even 
the  better  irreligious  philosophers ;  for  if  there  is  anything 
that  Natural  History  has  established,  it  is  that  organic  life 
is  separated  from  inorganic  forces,  mechanical,  chemical, 
electrical,  or  other,  by  inexorable  bounds;  and  that 
genera  may  begin  or  end,  but  never  transmute  themselves 
into  other  genera"  (Lectures,  pp.  17,  18.)  Surely  this  is  con- 
clusive on  this  head. 

It  thus  appears  that  the  only  "encroachment  which  phy- 
sicists make  upon  Scripture  teachings"  is  in  their  doctrine 
that  the  world  was  in  existence  at  least  ten  days  or  a  fort- 
night before  any  human  being.  This  they  certainly  do 
teach.  We  say  ten  or  fourteen  days,  because  it  makes  not 
the  slightest  difference,  as  regards  the  supposed  "encroach- 
ment," whether  the  pre-Adamite  earth  existed  only  ten  days, 
or  ten  thousand  million  myriads  of  centuries.  The 
"encroachment"  is  as  great  when  it  is  shown  that  the  earth 
existed  six  days  and  five  minutes  before  Adam,  as  if  the 
longest  time  were  admitted  that  could  enter  into  the  imagi- 
nation of  man.  Hence  is  manifest  the  irrelevancy  of  all  dis- 
cussions relating  to  the  length  of  time  during  which  the  pre- 
Adamite  earth  existed,  after  the  fortnight  or  the  six  days 
and  five  minutes  have  been  admitted  or  proved.  Whether 
the  doctrine  of  geology,  that  the  earth  was  in  existence  at 
least  a  fortnight  before  man,  is  an  encroachment  upon  Scrip- 
ture teaching,  or  upon  an  "old  and  current  [mis-] under- 
standing of  the  Bible,"  will  not  be  discussed  here.  The  doc- 
trine itself  is  very  easily  proved ;  and  it  is  also  very  easily 
proved  that  it  is  vastly  more  reasonable  to  believe  both  the 
Bible  and  geology  to  be  true  than  to  disbelieve  either.  While 
not  disposed  usually  to  rely  upon  mere  authority  in  scientific 
matters,  and,  as  perhaps  need  hardly  be  said,  not  inclined 
ordinarily  to  accept  Dr.  Dabney  as  the  highest  geological 
authority,  yet  in  this  case  it  may  be  best  to  prove  the  geo- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


423 


logical  heresy  in  question  by  accepting  his  teachings  respect- 
ing it.  In  Lecture  II,  on  the  "Existence  of  God,"  he  asks, 
"Can  the  present  universe  be  the  result  of  an  infinite  series 
of  organisms?"  He  shows  that  "metaphysical  answers"  to 
the  error  of  those  who  would  reply  affirmatively  to  this 
question  are  "invalid" ;  and  then  proceed  to  give  "the  true 
answers  to  the  atheistic  hypothesis."  The  fifth  "true 
answer"  is:  "(5.)  Science  exalts  experience  above  hypothesis 
even  more  than  testimony.  Now,  the  whole  state  of  the 
world  bears  the  appearance  of  recency.  The  recent  discovery 
of  new  continents,  the  great  progress  of  new  arts  since  the 
historic  era  began,  and  the  partial  population  of  the  earth  by 
man,  all  belie  the  eternity  of  the  human  race.   But  stronger 

STILL,  GEOLOGY  PROVES  THE  CREATION,  IN  TIME,  OF  RACE  AFTER 
RACE  OF  ANIMALS,   AND  THE   COMPARATIVELY  RECENT  ORIGIN 

of  man,  by  her  fossil  records."  (Lectures,  p.  17.)  Surely 
after  reading  this  decisive  testimony,  which  we  have  sought 
to  make  duly  prominent  by  capitals,  no  one  who  regards  Dr. 
Dabney  as  a  safe  teacher  can  hesitate  to  accept  the  only 
doctrine  which  is  really  taught  by  science  among  the 
"encroachments"  enumerated  by  him.  But  is  Saul  also 
among  the  prophets?  is  Dr.  Dabney  also  among  the  geolo- 
gists? So  it  would  appear.  The  difficulty  does  remain,  it 
must  be  admitted,  which  it  is  not  for  us  to  attempt  to 
remove,  of  explaining  how  he  can,  consistently  with  fairness 
and  logic,  on  page  178  of  his  Lectures  maintain  that  the 
"tendencies  of  geologists"  are  "atheistic,"  and  on  page  17 
prove  the  existence  of  God  by  the  teachings  of  these  same 
atheistic  geologists. 

We  have  stated  that  the  hypothesis  of  Herschel  and 
Laplace,  that  the  matter  of  the  universe  once  existed  in  a 
nebulous  condition,  is  not  taught  by  science  as  an  estab- 
lished truth,  but  is  still  held  only  as  a  hypothesis ;  and  per- 
haps it  can  never  be  either  completely  proved  or  disproved. 
But  suppose  we  should  believe  it  to  be  true,  how  would  this 
belief  "encroach  upon  Scripture  teachings"?  As  soon  as  the 
earth  is  shown  to  be  older  than  Adam  by  ten  days,  and  this 
is  perceived  to  be  not  contradictory  of  Scripture  teachings, 
it  becomes  a  matter  of  no  consequence  as  regards  the  inter- 


424 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


pretation  of  the  Bible  how  much  more  than  ten  days  the 
time  may  have  been.  Nor  does  it  concern  us  as  students  of 
God's  holy  word  how  he  created  the  world — whether  he 
"created  a  finished  world  of  sea  and  land,"  (whatever  that 
may  mean,)  or  nebulous  matter  which  he  endowed  with 
properties  such  that  it  would  pass  through  successive 
changes  until  it  reached  the  condition  in  which  we  now  see 
it.  Is  God  less  truly  the  Creator  of  the  magnificent  oak 
which  to-day  adorns  the  forest  because  he  did  not  by  a  word 
bring  it  into  its  present  condition,  but  endowed  the  tiny 
acorn  with  the  wonderful  properties  that  caused  it  to  become 
the  stately  tree  which  we  behold?  And  is  he  less  truly  the 
Creator  of  this  oak  than  of  the  one  that  produced  the  acorn 
from  which  it  sprang?  And  are  we  dishonoring  God  or  try- 
ing to  exclude  him  from  our  thoughts,  are  we  practical 
atheists,  when  we  trace  with  admiring  awe  the  laws  by 
which  he  produces  the  development  of  the  embryo  into  the 
full-grown  organism?  If  not,  how  are  we  atheists,  or  how 
are  we  dishonoring  God,  if  we  suppose  he  may  have  brought 
the  universe  into  its  present  state  by  a  gradual  process 
instead  of  by  an  instantaneous  act?  If  it  be  replied  that  we 
thereby  deny  the  truth  of  his  word,  the  answer  is :  His  word 
gives  us  no  information  on  the  subject;  it  informs  us  that  he 
created  the  world,  but  it  does  not  tell  us  how  he  created 
it.  Until  it  is  proved  that  his  word  teaches  the  method  as 
well  as  the  fact,  there  is  no  reason  for  regarding  the  nebular 
hypothesis  as  dangerous  or  atheistic,  merely  because  one  of 
those  who  first  suggested  it  was  an  unbeliever — "the  athe- 
istic astronomer,  La  Place. "    (Sermon,  p.  10.) 

It  is  in  connexion  with  this  hypothesis  that  we  first  have 
occasion  to  observe  Dr.  Dabney  on  the  field  as  a  physical 
philosopher.  He  certainly  exhibits  great  boldness,  and  is 
ready  to  break  a  lance  with  all  comers.  But  we  are  appre- 
hensive that  he  has  proved  neither  his  lance  nor  the  joints  of 
his  harness.  With  a  single  touch  of  his  spear's  point,  he 
flatters  himself  that  he  has  unhorsed  this  hypothesis,  and 
has  made  its  bloody  remains  roll  lifeless  on  the  turf.  He 
tells  us  that  "Lord  Rosse's  telescope  has  dissolved  the  only 
shadow  of  a  probability  for  it,  in  resolving  the  larger  neb- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


425 


ulae"  (Lectures,  p.  178,  and  Sermon,  p.  10.)  This  state- 
ment will  no  doubt  create  great  surprise,  if  not  amusement, 
in  the  minds  of  all  who  know  that  while  Lord  Rosse's  tele- 
scope resolved  some  nebulae,  many  others  have  been  brought 
to  view  which  show  no  sign  of  being  resolvable.  The  sur- 
prise will  be  all  the  greater  to  those  who  have  really  studied 
the  reasons  for  thinking  that  the  hypothesis  may  be  true; 
and  who  therefore  know  that,  although  nebulas  in  the  sky 
may  have  first  suggested  the  hypothesis  to  Sir  William 
Herschel,  the  reasons  in  its  favor  would  be  almost  if  not 
quite  as  strong  if  every  nebula  should  be  seen  to  consist  of 
completed  stars.  And  although  the  Lectures  and  Sermon 
are  dated  1871,  their  author  does  not  give  any  indication 
of  his  having  heard  of  the  amazing  discoveries  of  Bunsen 
and  KirchhofT  about  fifteen  years  ago,  or  of  the  applications 
of  the  spectroscope  with  which  they  have  enriched  the  world 
— an  instrument  by  which  not  only  the  chemistry  of  the 
heavenly  bodies  can  to  some  extent  be  ascertained,  but  by 
which  incandescent  gases — nebulous  matter — can  be  distin- 
guished from  solids  and  liquids.  Therefore,  though  Dr. 
Dabney's  demolition  of  the  nebular  hypothesis  may  be  satis- 
factory to  those  patriarchs  who  can  remember  when  it  did 
not  exist,  it  will  be  necessary  now  to  use  other  arguments. 
Ancient  weapons  are  of  no  avail  in  modern  warfare ;  and 
the  mediaeval  armor  of  the  most  gallant  knight  is  no  pro- 
tection against  a  conical  ball  projected  from  the  chassepot 
or  needle-gun. 

Closely  connected  with  Dr.  Dabney's  erroneous  statement 
of  the  teachings  of  science,  and  with  the  errors  into  which 
he  is  betrayed  by  his  want  of  acquaintance  with  physical 
science,  are  his  groundless  assertions  respecting  the  aims 
and  motives  of  students  of  science.  In  his  Lectures,  he 
says : 

"Tendencies  of  Geologists  Atheistic. —  Again :  why 
should  the  theistic  philosopher  desire  to  push  back  the 
creative  act  of  God  to  the  remotest  possible  age,  and  reduce 
his  agency  to  the  least  possible  minimum,  as  is  continually 
done  in  these  speculations?  What  is  gained  by  it?  Instead 
of  granting  that  God  created  a  kosmos,  a  world,  they  strive 


426 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


continually  to  show  that  he  created  only  the  rude  germs  of 
a  world,  ascribing  as  little  as  possible  to  God,  and  as  much 

as  possible  to  natural  lazv.    Cui  bono,  if  you  are  not  hank- 
ering after  atheism?"    (Lectures,  p.  178.) 
In  his  Sermon,  he  says : 

"And  I  ask,  with  emphasis,  if  men  are  not  in  fact  reaching 
after  atheism,  if  their  real  design  is  not  to  push  God  clean 
out  of  past  eternity,  why  this  craving  to  show  his  last  inter- 
vention as  Creator  so  remote?  Why  are  they  so  eager  to 
shove  God  back  six  millions  of  years  from  their  own  time 
rather  than  six  thousand?  Is  it  that  'they  do  not  like  to 
retain  God  in  their  knowledge'?  It  is  not  for  me  to  make 
that  charge.  But  have  I  not  demonstrated  that  the  validity 
of  their  scientific  logic,  in  reality,  gains  nothing  by  this 
regressus?"  (Sermon,  pp.  16,  17.) 

It  is  to  be  earnestly  hoped  that  no  one  who  is  inquiring 
as  to  the  truth  of  Christianity  will  regard  these  as  the  means 
by  which  that  truth  is  maintained.  The  world  must  always 
suspect  the  justness  of  a  cause  when  its  advocates  resort 
to  virulent  abuse  of  their  opponents  by  attributing  to  them 
unworthy  motives.  Not  by  such  weapons  can  our  holy 
religion  be  defended.  Every  student  of  science  who  is 
worthy  of  the  name  the  world  over,  will  reject  with  indigna- 
tion the  imputation  here  made  of  such  designs ;  and  no  more 
fatal  stab  could  be  given  Christianity  wherever  Dr.  Dabney 
is  regarded  as  its  faithful  representative.  The  geologist  is 
guilty  of  no  such  crime  against  the  sovereign  majesty  of 
truth  as  is  here  laid  to  his  charge.  He  examines  the  mate- 
rials of  which  the  accessible  part  of  the  globe  is  composed, 
he  studies  their  arrangement,  he  investigates  the  laws  by 
which  God  brings  about  such  arrangement  of  such  mate- 
rials ;  and  then  he  accepts  as  true  the  conclusions  to  which 
he  is  in  this  way  led.  He  does  not  undertake  to  determine 
beforehand  what  the  conclusion  shall  be,  and  then  ransack 
nature  for  seeming  facts  to  defend  his  opinion ;  he  does  not 
dictate  to  God  what  his  works  shall  teach ;  but  asking  only 
what  is  true  and  indifferent  to  all  else,  he  goes  forward 
cautiously,  yet  fearlessly,  and  accepts  as  true  whatever  the 
phenomena  of  nature  combined  according  to  the  God-given 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


427 


laws  of  his  mind  may  require.  The  true  student  of  nature 
does  just  what  is  done  by  every  true  student  of  the  Bible 
who  believes,  as  he  should  do,  in  the  plenary  inspiration  and 
consequent  truth  of  that  holy  volume.  Such  a  one  does  not 
go  to  the  sacred  word  for  proofs  of  his  preconceived  opin- 
ions; he  seeks  cautiously,  yet  fearlessly,  to  know  what  is 
taught,  and  that  he  accepts  with  unquestioning  faith.  Just 
so  far  as  any  other  method  is  adopted  in  either  case,  just  so 
far  is  there  manifest  dishonesty.  That  there  are  those  who 
profess  to  be  students  of  nature  who  are  merely  narrow- 
minded  partisans,  indifferent  to  truth  and  eager  only  to 
support  what  they  wish  to  be  true,  may  well  be  believed  in 
view  of  the  number  of  those  who  profess  to  be  students  of 
Scripture  who  are  of  similar  character.  But  Dr.  Dabney 
does  not  limit  his  charges  to  these.  He  is  indeed  charitable 
enough  to  say  that  he  does  "not  charge  infidelity  upon  all 
physicists."  (Sermon,  p.  5.)  But  of  course  in  his  opinion  it 
is  only  by  being  illogical  that  they  can  be  believers ;  for  he 
insists  in  his  "Memoir"  on  "Theological  Education,"  as  we 
have  seen,  that  the  "spirit  of  these  sciences  is  essentially 
infidel  and  rationalistic ;  they  are  arrayed,  in  all  their  phases, 
on  the  side  of  skepticism."  Hence,  nothing  but  the  want  of 
mental  capacity  can  preserve  one  imbued  with  their  spirit, 
as  every  true  student  of  nature  is,  from  being  an  infidel  and 
rationalist. 

This  charitable  admission  that  all  physicists  are  not 
infidels,  does  not  extend  to  all  who  profess  that  they  are 
not ;  for  Dr.  Dabney  tells  us  that  many  who  really  "disclaim 
inspiration"  are  base  enough  to  "profess  a  religion  which 
they  do  not  believe."  He  tells  us  not  merely  that  many 
students  of  science  are  infidels,  as  might  be  expected  if  his 
assertions  respecting  its  spirit  and  tendency  are  correct,  but 
that  many  of  them  are  hypocrites  as  well.    He  says : 

"We  have  the  explicit  testimony  of  an  eye-witness  in  the 
scientific  association  of  the  year  (held  at  Indianapolis),  that 
the  great  majority  of  the  members  from  the  Northern  States 
openly  or  tacitly  disclaimed  inspiration;  and  this,  while 
many  of  them  are  pew-holders,  elders — yea,  even  ministers 
— in  Christian  churches.    When  asked  why  they  continued 


428 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


to  profess  a  religion  which  they  did  not  believe,  some 
answered  that  the  exposure  and  discussion  attending  a 
recantation  would  be  inconvenient;  some,  that  it  would  be 
painful  to  their  friends ;  some,  that  Christianity  was  a  good 
thing  for  their  sons  and  daughters,  because  of  its  moral 
restraints."    (Sermon,  p.  6.) 

Does  Dr.  Dabney  think  he  has  sufficient  evidence  to 
sustain  charges  so  grave?  Surely  his  evidence  ought  to  be 
very  decisive  before  he  permits  himself  to  say  from  the 
pulpit  and  to  publish  to  the  world  that  many  "pewholders, 
elders,  even  ministers,  in  Christian  churches"  are  living  and 
acting  a  lie.  If  indeed  he  has  the  "explicit  testimony"  of 
which  he  speaks,  he  ought  fearlessly  to  declare  what  he 
knows  and  prove  it  to  the  world,  that  the  mask  may  be 
torn  from  the  hypocrites  whom  he  describes,  and  that  all 
true  men  may  be  on  their  guard  against  them.  But  if  he  has 
been  betrayed  by  warmth  of  zeal  into  an  unconsidered 
assertion,  he  surely  will  lose  no  time  retracting  it.  As  he 
states  the  evidence,  it  certainly  does  not  seem  sufficient  to 
convict  the  culprits  arraigned.  The  "eye-witness,"  it  would 
seem,  must  have  inquired  of  each  of  the  members  of  the 
American  Association  for  the  Advancement  of  Science 
which  met  at  Indianapolis  as  to  his  belief  in  our  religion, 
and  must  have  received  as  a  reply  from  many  of  the  min- 
isters of  that  religion  and  elders  in  Christian  churches  that 
they  did  not  believe  it ;  whereupon  the  "eye-witness,"  natu- 
rally enough  amazed,  must  have  inquired  as  to  the  cause 
of  this  hypocrisy,  and  then  the  different  causes  were 
assigned  which  Dr.  Dabney  mentions  in  his  Sermon.  With- 
out this  examination  or  a  similar  one,  the  statement  could 
not  be  justified.  Now,  the  probability  that  the  "eye-wit- 
ness" pursued  no  such  course,  and  that  the  hypocrites  in 
question  would  not  so  readily  proclaim  their  baseness,  is  so 
strong,  that  we  may  be  pardoned  for  failing  to  give  full 
credence  to  testimony  so  indirectly  reaching  us.  Let  it  be 
hoped  for  the  sake  of  all  concerned  that  this  charge  will 
be  either  substantiated  or  speedily  withdrawn. 

From  the  importance  attached  by  Dr.  Dabney  to  the 
alleged  attempt  to  push  "back  the  creative  act  of  God  to  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


429 


remotest  possible  age,"  to  "shove  God  back  six  millions  of 
years"  or  more,  it  might  be  supposed  that  the  firmness  of 
our  belief  in  God  as  Creator  varies  inversely  as  the  length  of 
time  which  has  elapsed  since  he  began  to  exercise  his  crea- 
tive power.  Otherwise  it  is  very  difficult  to  understand  on 
what  ground  he  objects  to  the  student  of  science  going  back 
as  far  as  facts  or  even  probabilities  may  lead  him.  As 
regards  any  supposed  contradiction  of  Scripture,  the  con- 
tradiction is  as  complete  when  we  admit  with  Dr.  Dabney 
"the  comparatively  recent  origin  of  man"  (Lectures,  p.  17) 
as  when  we  suppose  that  he  originated  the  matter  of  the 
universe  more  millions  of  years  ago  than  human  arithmetic 
can  numerate.  Therefore  it  is  hard  to  see  why  he  lays  so 
much  stress  on  this  point,  when  he  himself  teaches  the 
geological  doctrine  at  least  far  enough  to  involve  the  only 
supposable  contradiction ;  unless  indeed,  as  before  sug- 
gested, it  is  because  the  law  of  this  belief  is  like  the  law 
of  the  attraction  of  gravitation,  which  diminishes  as  distance 
increases.  But  is  it  true  that  we  to-day  believe  less  firmly 
in  a  Creator  than  we  did  yesterday,  or  than  the  men  of  last 
century,  or  the  men  of  two  thousand  years  ago,  or  of  the 
days  of  Methuselah?  And  if  a  thousand  million  centuries 
hence,  we  shall  be  permitted  to  examine  some  part  of  God's 
creation  now  in  existence  where  changes  are  in  progress 
which  are  leaving  indications  of  the  time  they  occupy,  and 
as  the  result  of  this  examination  we  shall  say  that  here  is 
evidence  of  the  lapse  of  some  millions  of  years,  must  we 
expect  some  future  Dr.  Dabney  to  attribute  to  us  "insane 
pride  of  mind"  (Lectures,  p.  178,)  "rationalism,"  "infidelity," 
"atheism"?  Will  the  evidence  of  creative  power  and  wis- 
dom be  less  clear  than  it  is  now,  or  than  it  was  when  first 
the  morning  stars  sang  together  and  all  the  sons  of  God 
shouted  for  joy?  Hence,  apart  from  the  fact  before  stated, 
that  true  students  of  science  do  not  desire  to  "shove  God 
back,"  but  desire  simply  to  know  the  truth,  it  is  reasonable 
to  suppose  that  they  are  endowed  with  at  least  sufficient 
intellect,  however  dishonest,  to  see  that,  if  they  wish  to  pro- 
mote atheism,  it  cannot  be  done  by  any  amount  of  "pushing" 


430 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


or  "shoving"  in  the  manner  and  in  the  direction  attributed  to 
them  by  Dr.  Dabney  in  his  Sermon  and  his  Lectures. 

We  have  already  alluded  to  Dr.  Dabney's  use  of  the  terms 
"sensuous"  and  "sensualistic"  in  connexion  with  physical 
science  in  a  way  fitted  to  excite  groundless  prejudice  against 
it  in  the  minds  of  those  who  are  likely  to  be  reminded  of 
"earthly,  sensual,  devilish,"  on  hearing  the  words,  and  who 
do  not  know  there  may  be  a  sense  assigned  to  them  which 
would  convey  a  very  different  idea.  He  may  have  intended 
no  injustice  in  employing  the  terms  in  question.  But  he  has 
been  more  unfortunate  in  using  the  terms  "naturalist," 
"naturalistic,"  and  "naturalism."  On  pages  12,  15,  and  16, 
of  the  Sermon,  and  pages  176  and  177  of  the  Lectures,  he 
properly  applies  the  first  two  of  these  terms  to  the  investi- 
gation of  facts  and  the  drawing  of  inferences  from  them 
in  accordance  with  the  intuitive  belief  in  the  law  of  uni- 
formity; but  on  pages  18  and  19  of  the  Sermon,  and  page 
179  of  the  Lectures,  he  uses  them  all  in  a  way  which  con- 
veys a  totally  different  meaning.    He  says : 

"The  best  antidote,  my  hearers,  for  this  naturalistic  unbe- 
lief is  to  remember  your  own  stake  in  the  truth  of  redemp- 
tion ;  and  the  best  remedy  for  the  soul  infected  is  conviction 
of  sin.  'Beware  lest  any  man  despoil  you  through  a  vain, 
deceitful  philosophy.'  Of  what  will  they  despoil  you?  Of 
a  divine  redemption  and  a  Saviour  in  whom  dwell  the  divine 
wisdom,  power,  love,  and  truth,  in  all  their  fulness;  of 
deliverance  from  sin  and  guilt ;  of  immortality ;  of  hope.  Let 
naturalism  prove  all  that  unbelief  claims,  and  what  have 
you?  This  blessed  Bible,  the  only  book  which  ever  told 
perishing  man  of  an  adequate  salvation,  is  discredited ;  God, 
with  his  providence  and  grace,  is  banished  out  of  your  exist- 
ence. .  .  .  Naturalism  is  a  virtual  atheism ;  and  atheism 
is  despair.  Thus  saith  the  apostle :  they  who  are  'without 
God  in  the  world'  are  'without  hope.'  Eph.  ii.  12.  Young 
man,  does  it  seem  to  you  an  alluring  thought,  when  appetite 
entices  or  pride  inflates,  that  this  false  science  may  release 
you  from  the  stern  restraints  of  God's  revealed  law?  Oh, 
beware,  lest  it  despoil  you  thus  of  hope  and  immortality.  .  . 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


431 


"Look  back,  proud  Naturalist,  upon  history;  your  form, 
and  all  other  forms  of  skepticism,  have  been  unable  to  hold 
their  ground,  even  against  the  poor  fragments  and  shreds  of 
divine  truth,  which  met  you  in  Polytheism,  in  Mohamme- 
danism, in  Popery.  Man,  however  blinded,  will  believe  in 
his  spiritual  destiny,  in  spite  of  you.  Let  proud  Naturalism 
advance,  then,  and  seek  its  vain  weapons  groping  amidst 
pre-Adamite  strata  and  rotten  fossils.  The  humble  heralds 
of  our  Lord  Christ  will  lay  their  hands  upon  the  heartstrings 
of  living,  immortal  man,  and  find  there  always  the  forces  to 
overwhelm  unbelief  with  defeat."    (Sermon,  pp.  18,  19.) 

In  these  passages,  the  modern  meaning  of  the  term  "nat- 
uralist" is  entirely  lost  sight  of;  and  Dr.  Dabney  could 
justify  the  amazing  assertions  and  warnings  uttered  only  by 
saying  that  the  words  as  used  some  hundreds  of  years  ago 
had  the  signification  which  he  here  wishes  to  convey.  It  is 
true  that  centuries  ago  it  would  have  been  proper  to  say 
that  a  "naturalist"  was  one  who  held  the  doctrine  of  "natur- 
alism" taught  by  Leucippus,  Democritus,  and  others,  among 
the  ancients,  and  by  some  unbelieving  philosophers  of  later 
days.  That  "naturalism"  was  "virtual  atheism,"  indeed  it 
was  professed  atheism;  for  it  attributed  the  phenomena  of 
nature  to  a  blind  force  acting  necessarily.  But  the  ancient 
"naturalist"  and  the  modern  "naturalist"  have  nothing  in 
common.  How,  then,  can  Dr.  Dabney  justify  his  passing 
from  the  modern  meaning  of  these  words  to  the  ancient  and 
obsolete  one,  without  giving  his  readers  and  hearers  notice 
that  he  had  done  so?  If  he  were  to  say  that  he  uses  them  in 
the  same  sense  throughout,  and  that  he  intends  to  assert 
that  the  "naturalist"  of  to-day  is  one  who  embraces  the 
"naturalism"  of  the  atheist,  he  would  take  a  position  to 
which  the  self-respect  of  a  modern  naturalist  would  forbid 
any  reply  to  be  made. 

Perhaps  the  whole  difficulty  on  these  points  arises  from 
Dr.  Dabney's  utter  failure  to  recognise  the  province  of  nat- 
ural science.  That  he  is  not  aware  of  the  limits  of  this 
province  is  very  evident  from  the  following  passages : 

"Does  the  professor  of  natural  science  say  of  geology,  that 
because  the  fact  which  it  attempts  to  settle  by  empirical 


432 


DR.  JAM^S  WOODROW. 


deduction,  is  the  fact  of  a  creation,  the  work  of  an  omnipo- 
tent agent,  therefore  in  the  very  approach  to  this  question 
the  validity  of  such  deductions  fails,  and  all  such  specula- 
tions are  superseded;  because  this  fact  of  a  supernatural 
creation,  if  it  has  occurred,  has  transcended  all  natural  law? 
Does  he  hence  briefly  infer,  as  I  do,  that  such  speculations 
about  the  mode  and  date  of  creation  must,  by  a  logical 
necessity,  always  be  incompetent  to  natural  science,  no  mat- 
ter how  extended?"    (Memoir,  October  31,  1866.) 

"Because  geology  is  virtually  a  theory  of  cosmogony,  and 
cosmogony  is  but  the  doctrine  of  creation,  which  is  one  of 
the  modes  by  which  God  reveals  himself  to  man,  and  one  of 
the  prime  articles  of  every  revealed  theology."  (Lectures, 
P.  175.) 

It  is  a  grievous  mistake  on  Dr.  Dabney's  part  to  suppose 
that  natural  science  has  anything  whatever  to  do  with  the 
"doctrine  of  creation."  If  he  should  become  acquainted  with 
geology,  he  would  learn  that  it  is  not  a  "theory  of  cos- 
mogony," either  virtually  or  really.  The  truth  is  that  natu- 
ral science  is  neither  Christian  nor  anti-Christian,  neither 
theistic  nor  atheistic,  any  more  than  the  multiplication  table. 
When  we  can  speak  of  a  Christian  law  of  gravitation,  or  an 
infidel  law  of  definite  proportions,  or  a  rationalistic  order  of 
succession  in  the  strata  composing  the  accessible  part  of  the 
earth,  then  we  shall  be  able  to  speak  of  Christian  and 
atheistic  natural  science,  and  not  until  then.  For  what 
is  natural  science?  Dr.  Dabney  gives  us  a  sufficiently 
good  description  when  he  says :  "Its  chief  study  is  to  ascer- 
tain the  laws  of  material  nature  and  of  animal  life."  (Ser- 
mon, p.  2.)  (Dr.  Dabney  does  not  profess  to  be  defining  nat- 
ural science  here,  but  is  describing  what  he  calls  "the  prev- 
alent vain  deceitful  philosophy  of  our  day" ;  but  this  is 
merely  his  not  very  flattering  way  of  speaking  of  what 
others  mean  by  natural  science.)  Accepting  this  descrip- 
tion, then,  is  it  not  clear  that  the  consideration  of  creation 
is  necessarily  excluded?  For  what  are  "laws  of  nature"? 
Dr.  Reid  replies,  as  almost  every  other  philosopher  would 
do,  that  the  "laws  of  nature  are  the  rules  according  to 
which  effects  are  produced."    Accordingly,  the  student  of 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


433 


natural  science,  by  experiment  and  observation,  seeks  to 
learn  what  these  rules  are ;  he  watches  the  order  of  sequence 
in  nature ;  and  thus  he  gains  the  knowledge  he  desires — 
in  no  other  way  can  he  gain  it.  This  knowledge  cannot 
pass  beyond  what  may  be  observed.  And  it  is  only  the  order 
of  sequence  in  nature  that  can  be  observed.  Hence  every- 
thing that  lies  beyond  the  observable  order  of  sequence  lies 
beyond  the  province  of  natural  science.  Now,  how  will 
natural  science  proceed  to  ascertain  either  the  fact  or  the 
mode  of  creation?  Can  the  order  of  sequence  in  creation  be 
observed  ?  Has  man  ever  been  able  to  see  what  the  regular 
steps  in  that  process  are?  If  not,  all  "speculations  about 
the  mode  of  creation  must  always  be  incompetent  to  natural 
science,"  as  Dr.  Dabney  rightly  says. 

In  like  manner,  all  speculations  as  to  the  origin  of  forces 
and  agents  operating  in  nature  are  incompetent  to  natural 
science.  It  examines  how  these  operate,  what  effects  they 
produce ;  but  in  answer  to  the  questions,  Is  there  a  personal 
spiritual  God  who  created  these  forces?  or  did  they  origi- 
nate in  blind  necessity?  or  are  they  eternal?  natural  science 
is  silent.  It  humbly  declares  that  such  questions  transcend 
its  highest  powers ;  it  shows  what  truths  it  has  gathered,  and 
with  free  hand  delivers  them  over  to  a  higher  philosophy  or 
to  natural  theology  as  useful  materials  with  which  to  con- 
struct arguments  demonstrating  the  being  and  wisdom  of  a 
personal  God  ;  but  such  demonstrations  lie  wholly  beyond  its 
humbler  sphere.  And  should  any  one,  whether  theologian 
or  student  of  natural  science,  infidel  or  Christian,  represent 
his  discussions  respecting  the  existence  and  attributes  of 
God  as  belonging  in  any  way  to  natural  science,  it  would 
show  clearly  that  he  has  yet  to  begin  to  learn  what  its  right- 
ful province  is.  And  it  would  be  as  unjust  to  hold  science 
responsible  for  the  infidel  views  respecting  the  Bible  and  its 
teachings  proclaimed  by  a  Vogt,  a  Moleschott,  a  Biichner, 
a  Tyndall,  or  a  La  Place,  as  to  hold  the  Bible  responsible  for 
the  astonishing  views  respecting  natural  science  proclaimed 
by  Dr.  Dabney. 

While  natural  science  is  itself  incapable  of  inquiring  into 
the  origin  of  the  forces  which  produce  the  phenomena  it 


28— w 


434 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


studies,  and  while  it  is  impossible  for  it  to  be  either  religious 
or  irreligious  (anti-religious  rather)  any  more  than  mathe- 
matics, or  grammar,  or  logic,  or  farming ;  yet  by  the  truths 
which  it  brings  to  light,  it  not  only  enables  natural  theology 
to  illustrate  the  wisdom  and  power  and  greatness  of  God 
as  nothing  else  can,  but  also  inimitably  expands  the  signifi- 
cance of  multitudes  of  passages  in  the  Scriptures  where  the 
meaning  is  already  clear,  and  sometimes  aids  in  gaining  a 
clearer  insight  into  that  meaning  where  it  is  obscure.  To 
the  most  ignorant  peasant  the  heavens  declare  the  glory  of 
God;  but  in  how  infinitely  higher  a  degree  to  the  astrono- 
mer, who  knows  something  of  the  real  magnitudes,  motions, 
constitution,  and  relations  of  the  heavenly  bodies.  And  the 
earth  showeth  his  handiwork  to  the  stupidest  savage;  but 
with  what  vastly  greater  clearness  and  impressiveness  to  the 
geologist,  who  knows,  however  imperfectly,  at  least  some 
parts  of  its  wonderful  past  history.  Every  department  of 
natural  science  sets  forth  truths  which  must  fill  the  loving 
heart  of  the  child  of  God  with  new  emotions  of  admiration 
and  reverence  towards  his  Father  whose  thoughts  he  sees 
expressed  in  his  works.  But  on  the  other  hand,  the  scoffing 
unbeliever  may  pervert  the  truths  discovered  by  natural 
science,  just  as  the  unbelieving  farmer  may  pervert  the 
fruits  of  his  successful  labor  by  using  them  to  promote 
every  kind  of  wickedness.  It  would  hardly  be  proper,  how- 
ever, in  this  latter  case,  to  begin  a  series  of  sermons,  memo- 
rials, etc.,  cautioning  the  Church  against  anti-Christian  corn 
and  cotton. 

That  natural  science  is  neither  atheistic  nor  Christian  in 
itself,  may  be  seen  further  from  the  fact  that  the  results 
reached  are  not  in  the  slightest  degree  affected  by  the  relig- 
ious views  or  character  of  its  students.  Two  chemists,  the 
one  an  atheist  and  the  other  a  Christian,  who  study  side 
by  side  in  a  laboratory  and  examine  the  same  substances, 
will  see  the  same  chemical  changes  and  arrive  at  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  same  laws.  Their  religious  differences  will  have 
no  more  effect  than  the  differences  in  their  stature  or  the 
color  of  their  hair.  So  if  they  go  to  the  mountain's  side  as 
geologists,  they  will  see  the  same  strata  in  the  same  order 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


435 


filled  with  the  same  fossils,  and  they  will  draw  the  same 
conclusions  from  what  they  see.  Perhaps  when  the  atheist 
retires  to  his  study,  and,  putting  off  the  character  of 
student  of  science,  begins  to  discuss  the  origin  of  things, 
he  may  say  that  he  believes  that  the  fossils  he  had  seen  are 
the  result  of  a  fortuitous  concourse  of  atoms,  and  that  the 
order  and  constitution  of  the  strata  are  one  of  the  possible 
combinations  brought  about  by  blind  chance.  And  the 
Christian,  in  like  manner,  when  the  glorious  workmanship 
of  God  is  no  longer  before  his  eyes,  may  strive  to  persuade 
himself  that  the  forms  which  he  had  seen  had  never  been 
parts  of  living  beings,  but  for  some  reason  unknown  to 
him  had  been  created  as  they  now  are  by  the  God  whom  he 
had  just  been  worshipping  as  the  God  whose  truth  endur- 
eth  for  ever,  and  of  whom  he  had  exultingly  exclaimed : 
"The  word  of  the  Lord  is  right;  and  all  his  works  are  done 
in  truth."  But  when  again  atheist  and  Christian  return 
together  to  their  investigations  in  the  light  of  day,  the 
former  is  as  far  from  uttering  his  absurdities  respecting  the 
power  of  chance  as  the  Christian  from  repeating  the  hor- 
rible thought  that  perhaps  the  God  of  truth  had  created  these 
fragments  of  bone,  and  shells,  and  decayed  wood,  and  dead 
leaves,  in  the  condition  in  which  they  are  now  before  him. 
But  we  are  not  left  to  speculation  as  the  only  means  of 
reaching  the  truth  on  this  point,  when  we  see  the  Christian 
Newton  and  the  unbeliever  La  Place  teaching  the  very  same 
astronomical  truths,  and  when  we  see  that  in  every  branch 
of  science  the  same  results  are  reached,  whatever  the  relig- 
ious views  of  the  investigators.  Even  among  the  hypotheses 
outside  of  the  ascertained  truth,  by  which  every  branch  of 
science  is  surrounded,  no  line  could  be  drawn  which  would 
separate  Christians  from  infidels,  any  more  than  one  which 
would  separate  Americans  and  Frenchmen  from  Germans 
and  Englishmen. 

Dr.  Dabney's  argument,  which  is  next  to  be  noticed,  is 
that  on  which  he  lays  most  stress  to  prove  that  there  can 
be  no  certain  conclusions  reached  respecting  the  antiquity 
of  the  globe  and  similar  questions.  It  is  this :  "The  admis- 
sion of  the  possibility  of  a  creation  destroys  the  value  of 


436 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


every  analogy  to  prove  the  date  and  mode  of  the  produc- 
tion. The  creative  act  (which,  if  it  ever  occurred,  may  have 
occurred  at  any  date,  when  once  we  get  back  of  historical 
testimony)  has  utterly  superseded  and  cut  across  all  such 
inferences."  (Lectures,  p.  177.)  The  remarks  above  made 
with  reference  to  the  universal  skepticism  necessarily  result- 
ing from  Dr.  Dabney's  effort  to  show  that  we  cannot  possi- 
bly reach  the  truth  because  we  are  fallen  beings,  "here  apply 
with  special  force.  If  we  adopt  his  principle,  we  shall  be 
sure  not  to  believe  anything.  But  since  he  speaks  of  it  as 
the  most  vital  point  in  his  argument,  it  is  proper  that  it 
should  now  be  stated  more  fully.   He  says : 

"Finally,  no  naturalistic  argument  from  observed  effects  to 
their  natural  causes,  however  good  the  induction,  have  any 
force  to  prove  a  natural  origin  for  any  structure  older  than 
authentic,  human  history,  except  upon  atheistic  premises. 
The  argument  usually  runs  thus :  We  examine,  for  instance, 
the  disposition  which  natural  forces  now  make  of  the  sedi- 
ment of  rivers.  We  observe  that  when  it  is  finally  extruded 
by  the  fluvial  current  into  the  lake  or  sea  where  it  is  to 
rest,  it  is  spread  out  horizontally  upon  the  bottom  by  the 
action  of  gravity,  tidal  waves,  and  such  like  forces.  The 
successive  deposits  of  annual  freshets  we  find  spread  in 
strata,  one  upon  another.  Time,  pressure,  and  chemical 
reactions  gradually  harden  the  sediment  into  rock,  enclos- 
ing such  remains  of  plants,  trees,  and  living  creatures,  as 
may  have  fallen  into  it  in  its  plastic  state.  The  result  is  a 
bed  of  stratified  stones.  Hence,  infers  the  geologist,  all 
stratified  and  fossil-bearing  beds  of  stone  have  a  sedimentary 
origin,  (or  other  such  like  natural  origin).  Hence  winds 
and  waters  must  have  been  moving  on  this  earth,  long 
enough  to  account  for  all  the  beds  of  such  stone  on  the 
globe.    Such  is  the  argument  in  all  other  cases. 

"Grant  now  that  an  infinite,  all-wise,  all-powerful  Creator 
has  intervened  anywhere  in  the  past  eternity,  and  then  this 
argument  for  a  natural  origin  of  any  structure,  as  against  a 
supernatural,  creative  origin,  becomes  utterly  invalid  the 
moment  it  is  pressed  back  of  authentic  human  history.  The 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


437 


reason  is,  that  the  possible  presence  of  a  different  cause 
makes  it  inconclusive.  .  .  . 

"It  may  be  asked :  'Must  we  then  believe,  of  all  the  pre- 
Adamite  fossils,  that  they  are  not,  as  they  obviously  appear, 
organised  matter;  that  they  never  were  alive;  that  they 
were  created  directly  by  God  as  they  lie?'  The  answer  is: 
That  we  have  no  occasion  to  deny  their  organic  character ; 
but  that  the  proof  of  their  pre-Adamite  date  is  wholly 
invalid,  when  once  the  possibility  of  creative  intervention  is 
properly  admitted,  with  its  consequences.  For  the  assumed 
antiquity  of  all  the  rocks  called  sedimentary,  is  an  essential 
member  of  the  argument  by  which  geologists  endeavor  to 
prove  the  antiquity  of  these  fossils.  But  if  many  of  these 
rocks  may  have  been  created,  then  the  pre-Adamite  date  of 
fossils  falls  also.  Moreover,  when  we  are  confronted  with 
an  infinite  Creator,  honesty  must  constrain  us  to  admit,  that 
amidst  the  objects  embraced  in  his  vast  counsels,  there  may 
have  been  considerations,  we  know  not  what,  prompting  him 
to  create  organisms  in  numbers  and  under  conditions  very 
different  from  those  which  we  now  term  natural.  After  the 
admission  of  that  possibility,  it  is  obviously  of  no  force  for 
us  to  argue :  'These  organisms  must  have  been  so  many 
ages  old,  supposing  they  were  produced,  and  lived,  and  died, 
under  the  ordinary  conditions  known  to  us.'  This  is  the 
very  thing  we  are  no  longer  entitled  to  suppose."  (Sermon, 
pp.  12,  13,  14.) 

"Our  modern  geologists  find  that  wherever  stratified 
rocks  are  formed,  since  the  era  of  human  observation,  the 
cause  is  sedimentary  action.  They  jump  to  the  conclusion 
that  therefore  the  same  natural  cause  produced  all  the  sedi- 
mentary rocks,  no  matter  how  much  older  than  Adam.  I 
reply :  'Yes,  provided  it  is  proved  beforehand,  that  no  other 
adequate  cause  was  present.'  Unless  you  are  an  atheist,  you 
must  admit  that  another  cause,  creative  power,  may  have  been 
present;  and  present  anywhere  prior  to  the  ages  of  authentic 
historical  testimony.  Thus,  the  admission  of  the  theistic 
scheme  absolutely  cuts  across  and  supersedes  all  these  sup- 
posed natural  arguments  for  the  origin  and  age  of  these 
structures."    (Lectures,  pp.  175,  176.) 


438  DR.  JAMES  W00DR0W. 

"Objection  from  Fossils  Answered. — Another  objection, 
supposed  to  be  very  strong,  is  drawn  from  the  fossil  remains 
of  life.  The  geologists  say  triumphantly,  that  however  one 
might  admit  my  view  as  to  the  mere  strata,  it  would  be 
preposterous  when  applied  to  the  remains  of  plants  and 
animals  buried  in  these  strata,  evidently  alive  thousands  of 
ages  ago.  The  reply  to  this  is  very  plain,  in  two  ways. 
First:  How  is  it  proved  that  it  was  thousands  of  ages  ago 
that  these  fossil  creatures,  now  buried  in  the  strata,  were 
alive?  Only  by  assuming  the  gradual,  sedimentary  origin 
of  all  the  strata!  So  that  the  reasoning  runs  in  a  circle.  Sec- 
ond :  Concede  once  (I  care  not  where  in  the  unknown  past) 
an  almighty  Creator  of  infinite  understanding,  (as  you  must 
if  you  are  not  an  atheist,)  and  then  both  power  and  motive 
for  the  production  of  these  living  structures  at  and  after 
a  supernatural  creation  become  infinitely  possible.  It  would 
be  an  insane  pride  of  mind,  which  should  conclude  that, 
because  it  could  not  comprehend  the  motive  for  the  produc- 
tion, death,  and  entombment  of  all  these  creatures  under 
such  circumstances,  therefore  it  cannot  be  reasonable  for  the 
infinite  mind  to  see  such  a  motive.  So  that  my  same  formula 
applies  here  also.  Once  concede  an  infinite  Creator,  and  all 
inferences  as  to  the  necessarily  natural  origin  of  all  the 
structures  seen,  are  fatally  sundered."    (Lectures,  pp.  177, 

178.) 

Before  discussing  the  main  argument  presented  in  these 
passages,  it  will  be  proper  to  notice  two  questions  inci- 
dentally introduced.  The  first  is  Dr.  Dabney's  statement 
when  speaking  of  fossils,  that  "we  have  no  occasion  to  deny 
their  organic  character."  It  is  very  difficult  to  see  what  he 
can  mean  by  this  statement;  for  his  whole  argument  rests 
on  the  supposition  that  the  fossils  may  have  been  created  as 
we  find  them.  He  says :  "If  many  of  these  rocks  may  have 
been  created,  then  the  pre-Adamite  date  of  fossils  falls  also." 
But  if  the  rocks  may  have  been  created  with  the  fossils  in 
them,  then  certainly  we  are  very  decidedly  "denying  their 
organic  character."  It  may  be  presumed  that  even  Dr. 
Dabney  would  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  representing 
God  as  thrusting  the  fossils  into  the  previously-made  rocks, 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


439 


after  the  death  of  the  animals  and  plants  of  which  the  fossils 
are  the  remains.  But  perhaps  it  would  be  rash  to  say  that 
any  one  does  not  mean  this  who  can  believe  that  God  may 
have  directly  created  the  fossil-bearing  rocks  at  all.  He  is 
clearly  right  in  one  particular — that  the  only  way  to  escape 
the  conclusion  that  the  fossils  are  pre-Adamite  is  to  assume 
the  "possibility  of  creative  intervention."  But  he  cannot 
assume  this  without  so  far  forth  "denying  their  organic 
character."  It  surely  would  have  been  more  consistent  with 
logical  propriety  if  he  had  not  sought  to  escape  the  conse- 
quences of  the  assumption  of  creative  intervention  by  saying 
we  have  no  occasion  to  deny  what  is  by  that  assumption 
directly  denied. 

The  next  preliminary  point  is  Dr.  Dabney's  anxiety  to 
escape  the  consequences  of  his  principles  by  insisting  again 
and  again  on  restricting  the  range  of  natural  science  to  the 
period  embraced  within  human  history.  Now  our  belief  in 
the  laws  of  nature  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  human 
history.  He  himself  teaches  the  truth  on  this  point  very 
clearly  in  his  second  and  sixth  Lectures.  He  says :  "It  is 
not  experience  which  teaches  us  that  every  effect  has  its 
cause,  but  the  a  priori  reason.  Neither  child  nor  man 
believes  that  maxim  to  be  true  in  the  hundredth  case  because 
he  has  experienced  its  truth  in  ninety-nine ;  he  instinc- 
tively believed  it  in  the  first  case.  It  is  not  a  true  canon  of 
inductive  logic  that  the  tie  of  cause  and  effect  can  be 
asserted  only  so  far  as  experience  proves  its  presence.  If  it 
were,  would  induction  ever  teach  us  anything  we  did  not  know 
before f  Would  there  be  any  inductive  science?  Away  with 
the  nonsense!"  (Lectures,  p.  15.)  The  italics  are  Dr.  Dab- 
ney's. "It  thus  appears  that  this  intuitive  belief  [that  'every 
effect  has  its  own  cause,  which  is  regular  every  time  it  is 
produced,'  page  53,]  is  essential  beforehand  to  enable  us  to 
convert  an  experimental  induction  into  a  demonstrated  gen- 
eral law.  Could  anything  more  clearly  prove  that  the  origi- 
nal intuition  itself  cannot  have  been  an  experimental  induc- 
tion?" (Lectures,  p.  53.)  In  these  passages  he  very  clearly 
and  correctly  sets  forth  the  exact  truth.  The  fundamental 
beliefs  in  natural  science  are  intuitive ;  they  are  entirely 


440 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


independent  of  experience,  which,  when  recorded,  becomes 
human  history.  Dr.  Dabney  would  have  been  more  logic- 
ally accurate,  if  in  this  crusade  against  physical  science  he 
had  adhered  to  his  own  teachings  in  his  second  and  sixth 
Lectures. 

Let  us  now  endeavor  to  ascertain  whether  it  is  true  that 
creative  intervention  supersedes  and  cuts  across  all  infer- 
ences such  as  the  student  of  God's  works  draws  respecting 
the  formation  of  fossil-bearing  layers  of  rock.  Of  course 
every  believer  in  a  personal  God  believes  that  he  can  pro- 
duce in  an  extraordinary  way  just  such  effects  as  he  ordi- 
narily produces  by  the  usual  laws  by  which  he  governs  his 
material  universe — the  laws  of  nature ;  and  every  believer 
of  the  Bible  believes  that  he  has  often  done  so.  The  numer- 
ous miracles  recorded  are  suspensions  of  the  laws  of  nature 
as  we  know  them,  deviations  from  the  ordinary  "rules 
according  to  which  effects  are  produced/'  It  is  not  neces- 
sary here  to  inquire  whether  miracles  are  "violations"  or 
"suspensions"  of  the  laws  of  nature,  or  are  the  regular 
results  of  other  and  higher  laws  of  nature  than  those  with 
which  we  are  acquainted ;  for  whatever  view  may  be  held 
respecting  their  character,  all  would  agree  that  they  are  at 
least  deviations  from  the  ordinary  order  of  sequence.  Now, 
does  this  admission  that  effects  have  been  produced  in  such 
unusual  ways  vitiate  all  inductive  science,  which  is  certainly 
based  upon  the  belief  in  the  uniformity  of  the  laws  of 
nature?  Does  the  admission  that  fire  on  some  occasions  has 
not  burned,  render  us  incapable  of  believing  that  fire  does 
burn?  Does  it  vitiate  all  conclusions  based  on  this  belief? 
We  can  best  learn  what  common  sense  and  the  right  use  of 
reason  teach  us  by  examining  a  few  cases  in  detail. 

On  one  occasion,  at  a  marriage  festival,  wine  was  pre- 
sented to  the  guests,  which  was  pronounced  to  be  of  excel- 
lent quality — it  was  real  wine.  Had  one  of  the  guests  been 
questioned  as  to  its  origin,  he  would  unhesitatingly  have 
said  that  it  was  the  expressed  juice  of  the  grape.  But  by 
unexceptionable  testimony,  it  could  have  been  proved  that 
it  had  been  water  a  few  minutes  before,  and  had  never 
formed  part  of  the  grape  at  all.    Now,  in  view  of  this  fact, 


HIS  TEACHINGS 


4M 


according  to  Dr.  Dabney's  reasoning  we  are  forever  debarred 
from  concluding  that  wine  is  the  juice  of  the  grape  unless  we 
shall  have  first  proved  the  absence  of  God's  intervening 
power.    Is  this  the  dictate  of  common  sense  ? 

One  of  the  laws  of  nature  with  which  we  think  we  are 
best  acquainted,  is,  that  fire  burns,  and  that  it  consumes 
wood,  flesh,  or  any  other  organic  substance.  And  yet,  once 
a  bush  burned  with  fire,  and  was  not  consumed.  On  another 
occasion,  there  was  a  burning  fiery  furnace,  exceeding  hot, 
which  had  no  power  over  the  bodies  of  three  men  who  were 
cast  into  it,  and  could  not  even  singe  a  hair  of  their  head. 
Now,  with  regard  to  our  daily  application  of  the  law  that  fire 
burns,  Dr.  Dabney  would  have  us  remain  in  perpetual 
doubt;  he  would  tell  us  that  "honesty  must  constrain  us  to 
admit,  that  amidst  the  objects  embraced  in  his  vast  counsels, 
there  may  have  been  considerations,  we  know  not  what, 
prompting  him"  to  give  to  fire  the  next  time  we  wish  to 
kindle  it  on  the  hearth  properties  "very  different  from  those 
which  we  now  term  natural" — in  short,  such  properties  that 
it  will  no  longer  burn.  He  has  done  so  in  the  past;  and 
"after  the  admission  of  that  possibility,  it  is  obviously  of 
no  force  for  us  to  argue" :  This  wood  must  burn,  and  roast 
so  much  flesh,  etc..  "under  the  ordinary  conditions  known 
to  us.  This  is  the  very  thing  we  are  no  longer  entitled  to 
suppose."  (Sermon,  p.  14.)  We  must  first  "ascertain  the 
absence  of  the  supernatural,"  before  we  can  be  sure  that  fire 
will  produce  the  effects  we  had  been  anticipating.  In  like 
manner,  we  cannot  be  sure  that  every  rod  we  see  will  not 
change  to  a  serpent;  that  iron  will  not  swim  upon  water,  or 
that  we  cannot  walk  upon  water,  or  that  water  will  not 
stand  in  heaps  as  a  wall ;  we  cannot  be  sure  that  an  inscrip- 
tion on  a  stone  tablet  in  the  grave-yard  is  the  work  of  human 
hands ;  we  cannot  be  sure  that  the  strangers  we  meet  were 
not  dead  at  one  time ;  for  we  cannot  have  forgotten  the  rods 
of  Moses  and  Aaron,  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea  and  of  Jor- 
dan, the  axe  of  Elisha's  pupil,  or  the  writing  on  the  two 
tables  of  stone ;  we  cannot  have  forgotten  the  son  of  the 
widow  of  Nain,  and  Lazarus,  and  Jairus's  daughter,  and  the 


442 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Shunamite's  son,  and  others  who  were  dead  but  afterwards 
came  to  life. 

What  conclusion  must  every  right-thinking  person  reach 
from  the  examination  of  these  instances?  Must  he  not  insist 
on  believing  that  wine  is  the  juice  of  the  grape,  except  where 
the  contrary  is  proved  by  competent  testimony?  He  cannot 
give  up  his  belief  that  fire  burns  because  it  has  not  always 
done  so — he  will  not  wait  to  have  the  rule  further  proved, 
he  reasonably  asks  that  the  extraordinary  exception  shall  be 
proved ;  he  believes  that  water  as  long  as  it  has  existed  and 
shall  exist,  has  had  and  will  have  its  present  properties,  but 
yet  is  ready  to  believe  any  proved  exception;  he  is  not 
afraid  to  say  that  he  knows  that  not  one  of  all  the  human 
beings  he  has  seen  during  his  whole  life  was  ever  dead, 
while  he  readily  accepts  the  evidence  which  informs  him 
that  there  have  been  exceptions  to  the  ordinary  law  of  mor- 
tality. 

Is  it  not  clear,  then,  that  the  rule  cannot  be  that  on  which 
Dr.  Dabney  insists — that  we  must  be  able  to  prove  the 
"absence  of  the  supernatural"  before  we  have  a  right  to 
attribute  an  effect  to  the  operation  of  God's  ordinary  laws? 
On  the  contrary,  are  we  not  required  by  the  very  constitu- 
tion of  mind  which  God  has  given  us,  to  believe  that  every 
effect  we  see  has  been  produced  by  God's  ordinary  laws, 
until  we  have  valid  testimony  to  the  contrary? 

If  we  adopt  Dr.  Dabney's  principle,  we  are  at  once  landed 
in  absolute  and  complete  skepticism — we  cannot  know  any- 
thing whatever  with  certainty ;  we  are  condemned  to  perpet- 
ual torturing  universal  doubt.  It  is  true  he  seeks  to  escape 
this  conclusion  by  what  he  says  of  "authentic  human  his- 
tory" ;  but  it  has  been  shown  that  history  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  laws  of  belief.  The  possibility  of  proving  the 
truth  of  the  Bible  is  at  once  destroyed.  A  copy  of  the  Bible 
is  placed  before  us,  documentary  and  other  evidence  is  sub- 
mitted to  show  its  genuineness;  but  how  can  we  tell  that 
this  is  a  book,  or  that  these  are  really  documents?  We  have 
been  taught  that  for  some  reason  unknown  to  us  God  may 
have  created  skeletons  that  never  belonged  to  animals, 
shells  that  were  never  inhabited;  that  he  may  have  created 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


443 


the  world  just  as  we  see  it  with  all  the  numberless  minute 
marks  of  having  been  produced  by  processes  which  he  has 
permitted  us  to  learn  and  forced  us  to  believe — marks  which 
prove  just  as  clearly  that  these  rocks  with  their  fossils  were 
produced  by  these  processes  as  that  this  Bible  consists  of 
sheets  of  paper  manufactured  by  man,  with  marks  upon 
them  which  seem  to  us  to  be  letters  and  words  and  sen- 
tences printed  by  man.  But  since,  as  Dr.  Dabney  says,  it  is 
possible  that  the  rocks  may  have  been  created,  notwith- 
standing these  minute  marks  of  not  having  been  created,  we 
must  equally  admit  that  that  which  seems  to  be  a  Bible 
with  its  supporting  testimony,  may  equally  have  been 
created,  and  has  no  such  meaning  as  we  must  have  believed, 
until  Dr.  Dabney  taught  us  better.  Once  admit  this  princi- 
ple, and  we  are  landed  in  skepticism  in  comparison  with 
which  that  of  Hume,  or  Berkeley,  or  Pyrrho,  was  confident 
belief. 

Dr.  Dabney  frequently  insists  that  his  argument  must  be 
admitted  by  all  who  are  not  atheists.  Is  it  not  rather  to  be 
feared  that  all  who  accept  his  exposition  of  the  theistic 
argument,  will  be  driven  towards  the  denial  of  a  God,  cer- 
tainly of  a  God  of  truth?  Speaking  of  rocks  called  by  geolo- 
gists sedimentary,  which  includes  the  entire  fossil-bearing 
series,  he  says :  "The  admission  of  the  theistic  scheme 
absolutely  cuts  across  and  supersedes  all  these  supposed 
natural  arguments  for  the  origin  and  age  of  these  struc- 
tures." Here  the  choice  is  presented :  Either  believe  in  a 
God  who  may  have  created  these  rocks  in  such  a  way  that 
they  are  certain  to  deceive  you ;  or  else  deny  the  existence 
of  such  a  God.  If  the  denial  of  such  a  God  is  atheism,  little 
is  hazarded  in  expressing  the  opinion  that  all  who  know 
aught  of  the  earth's  structure  are  atheists — they  can  and  do 
believe  in  no  such  God.  But  they  can  and  great  multitudes 
do  believe  in  and  love  the  God  of  the  Bible,  all  whose  works 
are  done  in  truth;  and  they  are  too  jealous  for  the  honor 
of  his  name  calmly  to  hear  attributed  to  him  the  possibility 
of  such  gigantic,  unlimited  deception,  and  especially  when 
this  is  done  in  the  house  of  his  friends,  and  in  that  which  is 
intended  as  a  defence  of  his  glorious  and  true  word. 


444 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


It  is  quite  possible  that  Dr.  Dabney's  opposition  to  physi- 
cal science  arises  from  his  want  of  acquaintance  with  it.  In 
this  opposition  he  is  unhappily  the  representative  of  but  too 
many  who  have  in  all  ages  claimed  to  be  defenders  of  the 
faith ;  and  familiarity  with  the  thing  opposed  has  never  been 
a  characteristic  of  those  whom  he  here  represents.  This 
want  of  acquaintance  with  its  real  value  may  also  account 
for  his  determined  efforts  to  exclude  it  from  the  course  of 
study  to  be  pursued  in  theological  seminaries.  In  his 
Memoir  on  Theological  Education,  his  Memorial,  and  his 
Lectures,  he  strenuously  insists  that  it  should  be  rigorously 
excluded  from  such  a  course.   He  says : 

"In  conclusion,  the  relations  of  those  sciences  (as  geol- 
ogy) which  affect  the  credit  of  inspiration,  would  be  studied 
by  divinity  students,  on  the  right  footing.  It  is  desirable 
that  at  least  a  part  of  our  clergy  be  well  informed  upon  these 
subjects.  But  to  make  the  study  of  them  therefore  a  part  of 
a  divinity  course,  in  a  school  strictly  ecclesiastical,  appears 
to  me  extremely  objectionable,  for  several  reasons. 

"First:  when  thrust  thus  into  a  divinity  course,  the 
instruction  upon  these  extensive  and  intricate  sciences  must 
needs  be  flimsy  and  shallow,  a  mere  sketch  or  outline.  The 
result  will  be  that  our  young  ministers  will  not  be  made 
natural  historians ;  but  conceited  smatterers  in  these 
branches  of  knowledge.  There  is  no  matter  in  which  Pope's 
caution  should  be  uttered  with  more  emphasis. 

"  'Drink  deep ;  or,  taste  not  the  Pierian  spring.' 

"The  great  lights  of  those  sciences,  armed  with  the  results 
of  lifelong  study,  are  not  to  be  silenced,  if  perchance  infidel, 
by  a  class  of  men  who  make  it  a  by-play  to  turn  aside  from 
their  own  vocation,  and  pick  up  a  scanty  outline  of  this 
foreign  learning.  These  clerical  smatterers  will  only  make 
matters  worse,  by  displaying  their  own  ignorance ;  and  their 
so-called  defences  of  inspiration  will  provoke  the  contempt 
and  sneers  of  their  assailants.  If  Christianity  needs  to  be 
defended  against  the  assaults  of  natural  science,  with  the 
weapons  of  natural  science,  it  must  be  done  by  competent 
Christian  laymen,  or  by  the  few  ministers  who,  like  Dr. 
Bachman,  are  enabled  to  make  natural  science  a  profound 


HIS  TEACHINGS, 


445 


study.  Let  our  Cabells  defend  the  'unity  of  the  race/  while 
our  pastors  preach  the  simple  gospel. 

"Second.  The  tendencies  of  such  a  course  will  be  mis- 
chievous, as  to  both  the  professor  and  his  pupils.  The  lat- 
ter will  be  found  more  inclined  to  mere  human  learning, 
and  to  the  conceit  which  usually  attends  it,  and  which 
always  attends  a  small  degree  of  it ;  babbling  the  language 
of  geology  and  ethnology,  with  a  great  deal  more  zest  than 
they  recite  their  catechism.  The  professor  will  be  found,  in 
nine  instances  out  of  ten  (mark  the  prediction,)  wounding 
the  very  cause  he  is  bound  to  defend,  by  diligently  teaching 
some  scheme  of  his  pet  science,  which  involves  a  covert 
infidelity.  Again,  we  solemnly  declare,  that  it  will  be 
found  that  the  most  mischievous  skepticism,  and  the  most 
subtle  doctrines  of  anti-Christian  science,  will  be  just  those 
propagated  from  these  Church  schools  of  natural  science; 
and  after  a  time,  the  Church  will  have  more  trouble  with 
her  defenders,  than  with  her  assailants.  For  the  spirit  of 
these  sciences  is  essentially  infidel  and  rationalistic ;  they  are 
arrayed,  in  all  their  phases,  on  the  side  of  skepticism." 
(Memoir,  Central  Presbyterian,  October  31,  1866.) 

"Without  presuming  to  teach  technical  geology  (for 
which  I  profess  no  qualification;  and  which  lies,  as  I  con- 
ceive, wholly  outside  the  functions  of  the  Church  teacher), 
I  wish,  in  dismissing  this  subject,  to  give  you  some  cau- 
tions and  instructions  touching  its  relations  with  our 
revealed  science."    (Lectures,  p.  173.) 

Who  could  have  expected,  after  these  protests  against  the 
introduction  of  physical  science  into  the  course  of  study  to 
be  pursued  by  theological  students,  that  Dr.  Dabney  himself 
should  forthwith  proceed  to  teach  it  from  his  own  theologi- 
cal chair?  Equally  unexpected  is  the  introduction  of  so 
much  of  physical  science,  as  he  understands  it,  into  a  ser- 
mon in  which  he  says,  "It  is  not  necessary  for  the  theolo- 
gian to  leave  his  own  department,  and  launch  into  the 
details  of  these  extensive,  fluctuating,  and  fascinating  physi- 
cal inquiries ;  nor  shall  I,  at  this  time,  depart  from  my 
vocation  as  the  expounder  of  God's  word,  to  introduce  into 
this  pulpit  the  curiosities  of  secular  science.    We  have  no 


446 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


occasion,  as  defenders  of  that  word,  to  compare  or  contest 
any  geologic  or  biologic  theories.  We  may  be  possessed 
neither  of  the  knowledge  nor  ability  for  entering  that  field, 
as  I  freely  confess  concerning  myself."  (Sermon,  pp.  7,  8.) 
But  surely  after  confession,  it  was  not  necessary  to  prove 
and  illustrate  it  by  specimens  of  what  he  would  teach  as 
natural  science;  and  it  could  not  have  been  expected  that 
so  much  of  the  Sermon  should  be  taken  up  with  what  he 
well  terms  "curiosities  of  secular  science." 

That  those  who  are  to  be  defenders  of  our  faith  should 
carefully  study  natural  science,  Dr.  Dabney  proves,  first, 
by  his  direct  assertion  respecting  geology:  "This  subject 
must  concern  theologians. — i.  There  must  always  be  a 
legitimate  reason  for  church  teachers  adverting  to  this  sub- 
ject" (Lectures,  p.  173)  ;  secondly,  by  his  own  example  in 
teaching  his  students  as  shown  in  many  of  his  Lectures,  but 
especially  in  Lecture  xxi.  and  its  Appendix;  and  lastly,  by 
the  sad  effects  of  undertaking  to  teach  that  for  which  he  is 
obliged  to  "profess  no  qualification." 

If  we  examine  the  character  of  the  natural  science  which 
he  teaches,  we  may  be  able  to  discover  still  more  clearly  the 
reasons  why  he  opposes  it  and  regards  its  conclusions  with 
distrust.  Let  us  begin  with  a  sample  of  his  botany.  Speak- 
ing of  the  trees  of  Paradise,  he  says  : 

"But  now  a  naturalist  of  our  modern  school  investigates 
affairs.  He  finds  towering  oaks,  with  acorns  on  them! 
Acorns  do  not  form  by  nature  in  a  day;  some  oaks  require 
two  summers  to  mature  them.  But  worse  than  this:  His 
natural  history  has  taught  him  that  one  summer  forms  but 
one  ring  in  the  grain  of  a  tree's  stock.  He  cuts  down  one 
of  the  spreading  monarchs  of  the  garden,  and  counts  a  hun- 
dred rings.  So  he  concludes  the  garden  and  the  tree  must 
be  a  hundred  years  old,  and  that  Adam  told  a  monstrous  fib, 
in  stating  that  they  were  made  last  week."    (Lectures,  p. 

176.) 

Now,  compare  this  with  real  natural  history.  Dr.  Dab- 
ney supposes  the  oaks  in  the  garden  of  Eden  had  acorns 
hanging  from  their  boughs ;  he  supposes  that  on  cutting  one 
down,  the  section  would  show  a  hundred  rings.    How  does 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


447 


he  know  these  things  ?  He  does  not  know  them  ;  he  guesses 
at  his  facts,  and  then  proceeds  to  reason  upon  his  fanciful 
guesses.  The  real  naturalist  on  the  other  hand  does  not 
begin  his  reasoning  until  he  knows  what  the  facts  are.  As 
to  the  oaks  in  Paradise,  he  candidly  confesses  he  does  not 
know  whether  there  were  acorns  on  them  or  not,  or  whether 
the  cross  section  of  one  of  them  would  have  shown  a  hun- 
dred year-rings  or  not;  and  he  has  too  high  a  regard  for 
true  science  to  base  any  part  of  it  on  guesses.  He  might 
add  that  his  observation  of  facts  has  led  him  to  refer  the 
rings  seen  in  trunks  of  trees  to  more  or  less  complete  cessa- 
tion of  growth,  which  cessation  in  our  climate  occurs  once 
a  year ;  but  that  he  cannot  apply  this  knowledge  to  the  trees 
of  Paradise.  If  asked  what  must  have  been  the  appearance 
of  the  cross  section  of  a  Paradise  oak,  he  will  doubtless  say 
he  does  not  know,  and  that  he  thinks  it  likely  that  Dr.  Dab- 
ney  does  not  know  either ;  but  if  he  must  express  an  opinion, 
he  thinks  that,  as  all  the  marks  he  has  ever  seen  on  any 
plants  indicate  the  truth,  so  God  did  not  impress  any  marks 
on  the  trees  of  Paradise  to  deceive  either  Adam  or  his 
posterity;  that  the  God  of  truth  did  not  create  scars,  or 
broken  branches,  or  chips,  or  stumps,  or  decaying  logs,  or 
anything  else  to  lead  astray  those  whom  he  created  in  his 
own  image. 

Let  us  next  take  a  sample  of  Dr.  Dabney's  physiological 
chemistry,  a  branch  of  science  to  which  he  seldom  refers. 
He  does  not  present  his  "law"  as  anything  more  than  a  "sur- 
mise" ;  but  he  asserts,  notwithstanding,  that  it  is  not  without 
"plausible  evidence."    He  says  : 

"Let  me  assume  this  hypothesis,  that  it  may  be  a  physio- 
logical law,  that  a  molecule,  once  assimilated  and  vitalised 
by  a  man  (or  other  animal),  undergoes  an  influence  which 
renders  it  afterwards  incapable  of  assimilation  by  another 
being  of  the  same  species.  This,  indeed,  is  not  without 
plausible  evidence  from  analogy;  witness,  for  instance,  the 
fertility  of  a  soil  to  another  crop,  when  a  proper  rotation  is 
pursued,  which  had  become  barren  as  to  the  first  crop  too 
long  repeated."    (Lectures,  Part  II.,  pp.  275,  276.) 


448 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


He  here  violates  two  fundamental  requirements  of  true 
science ;  namely,  first,  that  in  framing  a  hypothesis,  the 
causes  assumed  must  be  known  to  exist — must  be  real 
causes ;  and  second,  that  the  phenomena  to  be  explained 
must  also  be  known  to  exist.  Now,  in  this  case,  he  guesses 
at  his  cause,  and  guesses  at  the  facts  to  be  explained;  and 
still  further,  guesses  most  amusingly  at  the  evidence  by 
which  he  sustains  his  surmise — the  source  of  the  advantage 
resulting  from  rotation  of  crops.  Is  it  any  wonder  that  Dr. 
Dabney  should  have  little  respect  for  physical  science,  when 
he  thinks  this  is  the  way  it  investigates  nature  and  under- 
takes to  discover  laws  and  causes ;  when  such  "plausible 
evidence"  as  he  adduces  may  be  taken  as  sober  argument? 

But  it  is  chiefly  geology  that  he  attacks  and  casts  out  as 
"atheistic."  Let  us  therefore  examine  Dr.  Dabney  as  a 
geologist;  for  notwithstanding  his  modest  disclaimer,  he 
comes  forward  as  a  teacher  of  this  science.  Here  is  a  sam- 
ple of  his  instructions  on  the  subject: 

"Lowest  in  order  and  earliest  in  age,  are  the  primary 
rocks,  all  azoic.  Second  come  the  secondary  rocks,  con- 
taining remains  of  life  palaeozoic  and  meiocene.  Third  come 
the  tertiary  rocks  and  clays,  containing  the  pleiocene  fossils. 
Fourth  come  the  alluvia,  containing  the  latest,  and  the  exist- 
ing genera  of  life.  Now  the  theory  of  the  geologists  is,  that 
only  the  primary  azoic  rocks  are  original ;  the  rest  are  all 
results  of  natural  causes  of  disintegration,  and  deposition, 
since  God's  creation.  And  hence :  that  creation  must  have 
been  thousands  of  ages  before  Adam. 

"(a.)  Because  the  primary  rocks  are  all  very  hard,  were 
once  liquid  from  heat,  and  evidently  resulted  from  gradual 
cooling,"  etc.    (Lectures,  p.  170.) 

In  order  that  Dr.  Dabney's  geological  subdivisions  may 
be  the  more  easily  compared  with  the  subdivisions  made 
by  those  who  are  acquainted  with  geology,  the  two  are  here 
presented  side  by  side — giving  the  geological  classification 
which  really  comes  nearest  to  the  one  intended  by  the 
teacher  under  examination : 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


449 


Dr.  Dabney. 


Real  Geology. 


4.  Alluvia — Existing  genera. 


4.  Cainozoic 


{Recent. 
Pleiocene  } 
Meiocene  >  Tertiary 
Eocene  J 


2.  Palaeozoic. 


3.  Mesozoic. 


1.  Azoic. 


The  difference  between  Dr.  Dabney's  classification  and 
real  geological  classification  becomes  apparent  on  compar- 
ing the  above.  He  regards  the  secondary  as  embracing  the 
whole  of  the  palaeozoic  and  a  subdivision  of  the  tertiary; 
and  the  tertiary  as  equivalent  to  one  of  its  parts.  It  is  as  if 
he  had  given  us  this  geographical  definition:  "The  bodies 
of  water  on  the  surface  of  the  globe  are  oceans,  gulfs — 
including  the  Caspian  Sea — lakes,  and  the  Appomattox 
river."  He  is  no  more  fortunate  in  his  statement  of  the 
"theories  of  geologists."  For  they  do  not  hold  that  the  "pri- 
mary azoic  rocks  are  original" — the  azoic  rocks  belong  to 
the  sedimentary  stratified  layers  which  are  certainly  not 
original,  but  in  which  either  no  traces  or  very  doubtful 
traces  of  life  have  been  found.  Nor  do  they  hold  that  they 
"were  once  liquid  and  evidently  resulted  from  gradual  cool- 
ing." It  is  true  that  rocks  so  formed  are  "azoic,"  that  is, 
they  do  not  contain  the  remains  of  plants  and  animals ;  but 
the  term  "azoic"  in  geology  has  a  technical  signification,  as 
one  acquainted  with  the  science  would  have  known.  When 
we  look  at  Mont  Blanc  and  the  neighboring  mountains,  or 
still  better  when  we  stand  on  the  Gorner-Grat  and  look  at 
the  magnificent  range  before  us,  including  the  Cima  di  Jazzi, 
Monte  Rosa,  the  Twins,  the  Breithorn,  and  the  Matterhorn, 
we  see  mountains  which  are  white — very  white  indeed.  But 
what  would  be  thought  of  the  geographer  who  would 
gravely  inform  his  pupils,  utterly  forgetful  of  the  claims  of 
New  Hampshire,  that  the  White  Mountains  are  in  central 
Europe  along  the  northern  border  of  Italy?  This  is  pre- 
cisely similar  to  what  the  "geologist"  has  done,  whose 
claims  are  now  before  us.  But  it  cannot  be  necessary  to 
continue  this  examination ;  it  is  perfectly  evident  that  the 


29— w 


450 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


profession  of  want  of  qualification  to  teach  geology  had 
reasons  for  being  sincere,  and  ought  to  have  restrained  from 
every  attempt  to  exercise  that  function.  The  only  thing  to 
be  added  here  is  the  recommendation  that,  before  a  second 
edition  of  the  Lectures  shall  be  issued,  the  author  learn 
what  naturalists  mean  by  "genera";  for  in  a  large  number 
of  cases  he  employs  the  term  "genera"  where  one  acquainted 
with  natural  history  would  have  used  "species." 

In  view  of  these  specimens  of  Dr.  Dabney's  scientific 
attainments,  which  prove  that  he  is  acquainted  with  neither 
the  methods  nor  the  ends  of  physical  science,  with  neither  its 
facts  nor  its  principles,  is  it  not  reasonable  to  hesitate  to 
accept  his  opinions  and  conclusions  respecting  that  science? 
Why  should  his  warnings  against  it  be  heeded,  when  he 
knows  neither  what  it  is  nor  what  it  does?  They  should 
not  be  heeded,  any  more  than  the  warning  uttered  by  Pro- 
fessor Tyndall  that  we  should  not  believe  what  God  has 
told  us  of  himself  as  a  hearer  of  prayer  because  natural 
science  has  not  been  able  to  discover  how  he  hears  and 
answers. 

In  the  following  passages,  Dr.  Dabney  complains  of  the 
unreasonableness  of  geologists  in  resenting  the  animadver- 
sions of  some  theologians : 

"Not  a  few  modern  geologists  resent  the  animadversions 
of  theologians,  as  of  an  incompetent  class,  impertinent  and 
ignorant.  Now  I  very  freely  grant  that  it  is  a  very  naughty 
thing  for  a  parson,  or  a  geologist,  to  profess  to  know  what  he 
does  not  know.  But  all  logic  is  but  logic ;  and  after  the 
experts  in  a  special  science  have  explained  their  premises 
in  their  chosen  way,  it  is  simply  absurd  to  forbid  any  other 
class  of  educated  men  to  understand  and  judge  their  deduc- 
tions. What  else  was  the  object  of  their  publications?  Or 
do  they  intend  to  practise  that  simple  dogmatism,  which 
in  us  religious  teachers  they  would  so  spurn?  Surely  when 
geologists  currently  teach  their  system  to  boys  in  colleges, 
it  is  too  late  for  them  to  refuse  the  inspection  of  an  educated 
class  of  men.  When  Mr.  Hugh  Miller  undertook,  by  one 
night's  lecture,  to  convince  a  crowd  of  London  mechanics 
of  his  pet  theory  of  the  seven  geologic  ages,  it  is  too  late  to 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


451 


refuse  the  criticism  of  theologians  trained  in  philosophy!" 
(Lectures,  p.  173.) 

Some  distinctions  ought  surely  to  be  made  here.  It  can 
hardly  be  fairly  said  that  it  is  the  animadversions  of  theolo- 
gians as  an  ''incompetent  class"  that  geologists  resent.  No 
geologist  can  forget  that  many  of  these  "parsons,"  as  Dr. 
Dabney  calls  them,  have  been  and  are  most  accomplished 
members  of  the  geologist  "class" — as  for  example  the 
recently  deceased  Sedgwick,  and  Buckland,  and  Hitchcock, 
not  to  mention  a  multitude  of  others.  It  is  not  theologians 
as  a  class,  but  individual  theologians  who  are  ignorant  of 
the  subject  discussed,  whose  animadversions  are  not  always 
treated  with  very  great  respect.  Dr.  Dabney  himself  acts 
just  as  those  do  of  whom  he  complains,  when  he  says  that 
he  "freely  grants  that  it  is  a  very  naughty  thing  for  a  parson, 
or  a  geologist,  to  profess  to  know  what  he  does  not  know." 
Every  science  has  a  right  to  claim  that,  if  judged,  it  shall  be 
judged  by  those  who  know  what  it  is.  And  if  "theologians 
trained  in  philosophy"  refuse  to  learn  what  "boys  in  col- 
leges" can  understand,  and  then  denounce  as  atheistic  those 
who  have  acted  otherwise,  it  is  certainly  "a  very  naughty 
thing." 

It  must  be  apparent  to  all,  then,  that  it  is  of  great  import- 
ance that  theological  students  should  be  instructed  with 
reference  to  the  class  of  questions  under  consideration.  Not 
that  such  topics  should  be  discussed  in  the  pulpit;  but 
neither  should  Hebrew  Grammar  or  the  details  of  Church 
History  be  discussed  there ;  and  yet  Hebrew  Grammar  and 
Church  History  must  be  studied  by  theological  students. 
Nothing  should  ever  be  preached  from  the  pulpit  except 
the  gospel.  But  if  the  candidate  for  the  ministry  cannot  be 
adequately  instructed  elsewhere  on  the  points  in  question, 
it  must  be  the  duty  of  the  Church  to  provide  that  instruction 
in  her  training  schools.  And  Dr.  Dabney  ought  not  so 
strenuously  to  object  to  such  provision,  merely  because  he 
has  not  felt  himself  called  upon  to  seek  and  obtain  accurate 
knowledge  with  reference  to  these  subjects.  There  never 
was  a  time  when  it  was  more  imperatively  necessary  that  all 
teachers  of  our  religion  should  be  well  acquainted  with 


452 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


natural  science.  It  is  in  the  falsely-assumed  name  of  this 
science  that  fierce  attacks  upon  vital  truth  are  made.  The 
defenders  of  Christian  truth,  ignorant  of  the  difference 
between  true  science  and  the  errors  uttered  in  its  name, 
greatly  err  if  they  think  they  can  effect  anything  by  pro- 
claiming that  the  "spirit  of  these  sciences  is  essentially 
infidel  and  rationalistic,"  and  by  denouncing  as  atheistic 
what  every  reasonable  man  must  believe.  They  thus 
merely  expose  themselves  to  derision.  This  might  be  of 
slight  consequence,  but  for  the  fact  that  inquirers  after  the 
truth  of  Christianity  may  be  led,  in  their  summary  rejection 
of  such  arguments,  into  an  error  similar  to  that  made  by 
some  "theologians,"  namely,  that  of  confounding  the  unten- 
able defence  with  the  thing  defended. 

Is  it  not  worth  while  to  consider  whether  the  past  his- 
tory of  the  Church  of  Christ  does  not  sufficiently  illustrate 
the  divine  power  of  the  truth  to  survive  such  defences? 
That  history  in  this  respect  is  a  very  sad  one.  In  the  fourth 
century,  Lactantius  was  one  of  the  foremost  of  these  defend- 
ers. The  third  Book  of  his  "Divine  Institutions"  treats  of 
the  "False  Science  of  Philosophers."  In  the  twenty-fourth 
chapter  of  this  caution  against  Anti-Christian  Science,  he 
asks,  speaking  of  the  infidel  doctrine  that  there  are  antipo- 
des :  "Who  is  so  silly  as  to  believe  that  there  are  men  whose 
feet  are  higher  than  their  heads?  .  .  .  that  crops  of  grain 
and  trees  grow  downwards?  that  rain,  snow,  and  hail  fall 
up  toward  the  earth?  .  .  .  We  must  explain  the  origin  of 
this  error  also.  For  they  are  always  led  astray  in  the  same 
way.  When  they  have  assumed  a  false  principle,  influenced 
by  the  appearance  of  truth,  it  is  necessary  that  they  follow 
it  out  to  its  consequences.  Thus  they  fall  into  many  ridic- 
ulous errors.  ...  If  you  ask  those  who  defend  these  won- 
derful statements,  how  it  happens  that  all  things  do  not 
fall  into  the  lower  part  of  the  sky,  they  reply  that  it  is  the 
nature  of  things  that  heavy  bodies  are  borne  toward  the 
centre,  and  that  all  things  are  connected  with  the  centre  as 
we  see  the  spokes  in  a  wheel.  ...  I  do  not  know  what  I 
should  say  of  these  persons,  who,  when  they  have  once 
gone  astray,  constantly  persevere  in  their  folly,  and  defend 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


453 


their  vain  statements  by  vain  reasons."  Passing  by  similar 
teachings  on  the  part  of  Chrysostom  and  many  others,  in 
the  eighth  century  Virgilius  of  Salzburg  was  publicly  con- 
demned by  Pope  Zacharias  for  maintaining  the  existence  of 
the  same  antipodes ;  and  centuries  later,  it  was  taught  that 
the  hypothesis  of  an  antipodal  region  is  "inconsistent  with 
our  faith;  for  the  gospel  had  been  preached  throughout  all 
the  habitable  earth ;  and,  according  to  this  opinion,  such 
persons  (the  antipodes)  could  not  have  heard  it,"  etc. 
Every  one  knows  how  the  astronomical  truths  again 
brought  to  light  by  Copernicus  and  confirmed  and  illustrated 
by  Galileo  were  received  by  multitudes  of  theologians  who 
set  themselves  forward  as  special  defenders  of  the  faith; 
and  that,  not  only  by  the  Roman  Catholics,  but  by  leading 
Protestants  as  late  as  the  seventeenth  century.  In  the  same 
century  it  was  maintained,  just  as  it  now  is,  that  "God  at  the 
beginning  of  creation  caused  coal,  vegetable  and  animal 
forms,  to  grow  in  the  rocks,  just  as  he  caused  grass  and 
other  plants  to  grow  upon  the  earth ;"  and  that  opinions 
contrary  to  this  "are  partly  atheistic,  partly  ridiculous,  and 
without  foundation."  But  this  sad  history  has  been  fol- 
lowed far  enough.  Christianity  based  upon  a  firm  belief 
in  the  Bible  has  survived  it  all.  Surely  it  would  be  difficult 
to  give  a  stronger  proof  of  its  truth  than  that  such  defences 
have  not  caused  it  to  be  utterly  rejected.  The  similar 
defences  made  by  Dr.  Dabney  will  be  alike  powerless  to 
destroy  the  Bible;  but  is  there  not  danger  that  many  per- 
sons, taking  it  for  granted  that  he  would  not  place  unneces- 
sary obstacles  in  the  way  of  belief  in  the  Bible,  may  think 
it  necessary  either  to  adopt  his  principles  or  reject  Christian 
belief?  and  finding  it  repugnant  to  right  reason  and  common 
sense  to  accept  what  he  teaches  on  these  points,  may 
thereby  be  led  to  reject  the  sacred  and  true  Scriptures? 

It  can  hardly  be  necessary  to  examine  minutely  what  Dr. 
Dabney  says  further  on  these  topics;  as,  for  example,  the 
reasons  he  adduces  to  support  his  statement  that  "the 
assumption  that  henceforth  physical  science  is  to  be  trusted, 
and  to  be  free  from  all  uncertainty  and  change,  is  therefore 
simply  foolish."    As  one  proof  of  this,  he  alludes  to  the 


454 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


"deep  sea  soundings  which  have  lately"  been  made,  as  show- 
ing that  "formations  determined  (as  was  asserted)  to  be 
older  and  newer  lie  beside  each  other  in  the  ocean  contem- 
poraneously"-— all  of  which  evinces  an  utter  misapprehen- 
sion of  the  real  import  of  the  discoveries  in  question.  He 
further  refers  to  the  changes  in  chemistry  as  illustrating  the 
untrustworthiness  of  science.  It  would  be  tedious  to  go 
into  details  here  on  these  points;  it  is  enough  to  say  that 
if  the  conclusions  of  physical  science  are  to  be  rejected  on 
such  grounds,  we  must  also  reject  the  Bible  because  opin- 
ions vary  as  to  whether  the  Book  of  Job  was  written  by 
Moses  or  not;  because  the  exact  time  when  this  book  was 
written  has  not  been  ascertained;  and  because  it  has  not 
been  decided  in  the  theological  world  whether  Moses,  under 
the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  compiled  the  Pentateuch 
from  previously  existing  documents,  or  under  the  same 
guidance  embodied  in  it  the  traditions  handed  down  from 
father  to  son  without  being  committed  to  writing,  or  wrote 
words  immediately  dictated  to  him  by  the  Spirit.  Dr.  Dab- 
ney's  objections  bear  the  same  relation  to  belief  in  physical 
science  that  these  objections  would  do  to  belief  in  the 
Sacred  Scriptures. 

Such  warnings  against  science  are  not  new;  and  unhap- 
pily it  is  not  new  that  they  are  uttered  by  theologians,  who 
ought  all  to  be  the  most  earnest  promoters  of  knowledge 
of  every  kind,  as  multitudes  of  them  have  been.  It  is  pain- 
ful that  in  this  day  as  well  as  in  that  of  Lord  Bacon,  there 
should  be  theologians  who  deserve  the  rebuke  so  sternly 
administered  by  that  master  of  thought.  Let  his  words  be 
again  heard,  and  let  them  be  heeded  by  all  who  profess  to 
love  the  truth.  In  his  immortal  work  on  the  Advancement 
of  Learning,  he  says :  * 

"In  the  entrance  to  the  former  of  these,  to  clear  the  way, 
and,  as  it  were,  to  make  silence,  to  have  the  true  testimonies 
concerning  the  dignity  of  learning  to  be  better  heard,  with- 
out the  interruption  of  tacit  objections :  I  think  good  to 
deliver  it  from  the  discredits  and  disgraces  which  it  hath 
received,  all  from  ignorance,  but  ignorance  severally  dis- 
guised;  appearing  sometimes  in  the  zeal  and  jealousy  oi 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


•455 


divines ;  sometimes  in  the  severity  and  arrogancy  of  poli- 
ticians ;  and  sometimes  in  the  errors  and  imperfections  of 
learned  men  themselves. 

"I  hear  the  former  sort  say,  that  knowledge  is  of  those 
things  which  are  to  be  accepted  of  with  great  limitation  and 
caution ;  that  the  aspiring  to  over-much  knowledge,  was  the 
original  temptation  and  sin,  whereupon  ensued  the  fall  of 
man ;  that  knowledge  hath  in  it  somewhat  of  the  serpent, 
and  therefore  where  it  entereth  into  a  man  it  makes  him 
swell ;  'Scientia  inflat :'  that  Solomon  gives  a  censure,  'That 
there  is  no  end  of  making  books,  and  that  much  reading 
is  a  weariness  of  the  flesh ;'  and  again  in  another  place,  'That 
in  spacious  knowledge  there  is  much  contristation,  and  that 
he  that  increaseth  knowledge  increaseth  anxiety;'  that  St. 
Paul  gives  a  caveat,  'That  we  be  not  spoiled  through  vain 
philosophy ;'  that  experience  demonstrates  how  learned  men 
have  been  arch-heretics,  how  learned  times  have  been 
inclined  to  atheism,  and  how  the  contemplation  of  second 
causes  doth  derogate  from  our  dependence  upon  God,  who 
is  the  first  cause. 

"To  discover  then  the  ignorance  and  error  of  this  opinion, 
and  the  misunderstanding  in  the  grounds  thereof,  it  may 
well  appear  these  men  do  not  observe  or  consider,  that  it 
was  not  the  pure  knowledge  of  nature  and  universality,  a 
knowledge  by  the  light  whereof  man  did  give  names  unto 
other  creatures  in  Paradise,  as  they  were  brought  before 
him,  according  unto  their  proprieties,  which  gave  the  occa- 
sion to  the  fall ;  but  it  was  the  proud  knowledge  of  good  and 
evil,  with  an  intent  in  man  to  give  law  unto  himself,  and 
to  depend  no  more  upon  God's  commandments,  which  was 
the  form  of  the  temptation.  Neither  is  it  any  quantity  of 
knowledge,  how  great  soever,  that  can  make  the  mind  of 
man  to  swell.  .  .  .  And  as  for  that  censure  of  Solomon,  con- 
cerning the  excess  of  writing  and  reading  books,  and  the 
anxiety  of  spirit  which  redoundeth  from  knowledge;  and 
that  admonition  of  St.  Paul,  'That  we  be  not  seduced  by  vain 
philosophy;'  let  those  places  be  rightly  understood,  and 
they  do  indeed  excellently  set  forth  the  true  bounds  and 
limitations,  whereby  human  knowledge  is  confined  and  cir- 


456 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


cumscribed ;  and  yet  without  any  such  contracting  or  coarc- 
tation, but  that  it  may  comprehend  all  the  universal  nature 
of  things.  For  these  limitations  are  three :  the  first,  that  we 
do  not  so  place  our  felicity  in  knowledge,  as  we  forget  our 
mortality.  The  second,  that  we  make  application  of  our 
knowledge,  to  give  ourselves  repose  and  contentment,  and 
not  distaste  or  repining.  The  third,  that  we  do  not  presume 
by  the  contemplation  of  nature  to  attain  to  the  mysteries  of 
God.  .  .  .  And  as  for  the  third  point,  it  deserveth  to  be  a 
little  stood  upon,  and  not  to  be  lightly  passed  over :  for  if  any 
man  shall  think  by  view  and  inquiry  into  these  sensible  and 
material  things  to  attain  that  light,  whereby  he  may  reveal 
unto  himself  the  nature  or  will  of  God,  then  indeed  is  he 
spoiled  by  vain  philosophy :  for  the  contemplation  of  God's 
creatures  and  works  produceth  (having  regard  to  the  works 
and  creatures  themselves)  knowledge ;  but  having  regard  to 
God,  no  perfect  knowledge,  but  wonder,  which  is  broken 
knowledge.  .  .  .  And  as  for  the  conceit  that  too  much 
knowledge  should  incline  a  man  to  atheism,  and  that  the 
ignorance  of  second  causes  should  make  a  more  devout 
dependence  upon  God  which  is  the  first  cause :  First,  it  is 
good  to  ask  the  question  which  Job  asked  of  his  friends : 
'Will  you  lie  for  God,  as  one  man  will  do  for  another,  to 
gratify  him  ?'  For  certain  it  is  that  God  worketh  nothing  in 
nature  but  by  second  causes ;  and  if  they  would  have  it 
otherwise  believed,  it  is  mere  imposture,  as  it  were  in  favor 
towards  God ;  and  nothing  else  but  to  offer  to  the  Author  of 
truth  the  unclean  sacrifice  of  a  lie.  But  farther,  it  is  an 
assured  truth,  and  a  conclusion  of  experience,  that  a  little 
superficial  knowledge  of  philosophy  may  incline  the  mind 
of  man  to  atheism,  but  a  farther  proceeding  therein  doth 
bring  the  mind  back  again  to  religion;  for  in  the  entrance 
of  philosophy,  when  the  second  causes,  which  are  next  unto 
the  senses,  do  offer  themselves  to  the  mind  of  man,  if  it 
dwell  and  stay  there,  it  may  induce  some  oblivion  of  the 
highest  cause;  but  when  a  man  passeth  on  farther,  and 
seeth  the  dependence  of  causes,  and  the  works  of  Provi- 
dence ;  then,  according  to  the  allegory  of  the  poets,  he  will 
easily  believe  that  the  highest  link  of  nature's  chain  must 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


457 


needs  be  tied  to  the  foot  of  Jupiter's  chair.  To  conclude 
therefore,  let  no  man,  upon  a  weak  conceit  of  sobriety,  or 
an  ill-applied  moderation,  think  or  maintain,  that  a  man 
can  search  too  far,  or  be  too  well  studied  in  the  book  of 
God's  word,  or  in  the  book  of  God's  works ;  divinity  or  phi- 
losophy; but  rather  let  men  endeavour  an  endless  progress 
or  proficience  in  both ;  only  let  men  beware  that  they  apply 
both  to  charity,  and  not  to  swelling;  to  use,  and  not  to 
ostentation ;  and  again,  that  they  do  not  unwisely  mingle  or 
confound  these  learnings  together."    (Pp.  7-13.) 

The  remark  made  at  the  outset,  we  would  repeat  in  clos- 
ing this  examination  of  Dr.  Dabney's  assaults,  that  it  would 
have  been  vastly  more  gratifying  to  have  stood  by  his  side 
defending  sacred  truth,  than  it  has  been  to  point  out  the 
deadly  character  of  his  teachings.  Nothing  but  a  sense  of 
duty,  requiring  the  exposure  of  these  errors  that  the  truth 
might  be  upheld,  would  have  been  a  sufficient  motive  to 
perform  a  task  in  many  respects  so  painful.  His  design  is 
most  praiseworthy — the  defence  of  Christian  truth.  But 
unfortunately,  zeal  and  laudable  intentions  are  not  enough 
if  unaccompanied  with  the  requisite  degree  and  kind  of 
knowledge.  The  most  zealous  and  patriotic  soldier  whose 
sight  is  defective,  may  mistake  a  friend  or  a  non-combatant 
for  an  armed  foe. 

It  affords  us  real  satisfaction,  before  we  close,  heartily  to 
commend  one  caution  uttered  by  Dr.  Dabney,  namely,  the 
deliberation  which  he  enjoins  on  pages  173  and  174  of  his 
Lectures,  where  he  says : 

"Deliberation  Enjoined.— Let  me  urge  upon  you  a  wiser 
attitude  and  temper  towards  the  new  science  than  many 
have  shown,  among  the  ministry.  Some  have  shown  a  jeal- 
ousy and  uneasiness,  unworthy  of  the  stable  dignity  of  the 
cause  of  inspiration.  These  apparent  difficulties  of  geology 
are  just  such  as  science  has  often  paraded  against  the  Bible  ; 
but  God's  word  has  stood  firm,  and  every  true  advance  of 
science  has  only  redounded  to  its  honor.  Christians,  there- 
fore, can  afford  to  bear  these  seeming  assaults  with  exceed- 
ing coolness.  Other  pretended  theologians  have  been  seen 
advancing,   and   then   as    easily   retracting  new-fangled 


458 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


schemes  of  exegesis,  to  suit  new  geologic  hypotheses.  The 
Bible  has  often  had  cause  here  to  cry,  'Save  me  from  my 
friends.'  Scarcely  has  the  theologian  announced  himself  as 
sure  of  his  discovery  that  this  is  the  correct  way  to  adjust 
Revelation  to  the  prevalent  hypotheses  of  the  geologists, 
when  these  mutable  gentlemen  change  their  hypothesis 
totally.  The  obsequious  divine  exclaims :  'Well,  I  was  in 
error  then ;  but  now  I  have  certainly  the  right  exposition  to 
reconcile  Moses  to  the  geologists.'  And  again  the  fickle 
science  changes  its  ground.  What  can  be  more  degrading 
to  the  authority  of  Revelation !  As  remarked  in  a  previous 
lecture,  unless  the  Bible  has  its  own  ascertainable  and  cer- 
tain law  of  exposition,  it  cannot  be  a  rule  of  faith;  our 
religion  is  but  rationalism.  I  repeat,  if  any  part  of  the 
Bible  must  wait  to  have  its  real  meaning  imposed  upon  it 
by  another,  and  a  human  science,  that  part  is  at  least  mean- 
ingless and  worthless  to  our  souls.  It  must  expound  itself 
independently;  making  other  sciences  ancillary,  and  not 
dominant  over  it." 

Of  course  it  is  only  the  injunction  of  deliberation  that  is 
here  commended,  without  any  expression  of  opinion  as  to 
the  tone  and  style  in  which  it  is  conveyed.  The  main 
thought  is  so  important  that  this  article  cannot  be  better 
concluded  than  by  repeating  it  in  the  words  of  the  late  dis- 
tinguished Sir  John  Herschel : 

"Nothing,  then,  can  be  more  unfounded  than  the  objection 
which  has  been  taken,  in  limine,  by  persons,  well  meaning 
perhaps,  certainly  narrow-minded,  against  the  study  of 
natural  philosophy,  and,  indeed,  against  all  science, — that  it 
fosters  in  its  cultivators  an  undue  and  overweening  self-con- 
ceit, leads  them  to  doubt  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  to 
scoff  at  revealed  religion.  Its  natural  effect,  we  may  confi- 
dently assert,  on  every  well  constituted  mind,  is  and  must 
be  the  direct  contrary.  No  doubt,  the  testimony  of  natural 
reason,  on  whatever  exercised,  must  of  necessity  stop  short 
of  those  truths  which  it  is  the  object  of  revelation  to  make 
known.  .  .  . 

"But  while  we  thus  vindicate  the  study  of  natural  philoso- 
phy from  a  charge  at  one  time  formidable  from  the  pertinacity 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


459 


and  acrimony  with  which  it  was  urged,  and  is  still  occa- 
sionally brought  forward  to  the  distress  and  disgust  of  every 
well  constituted  mind,  we  must  take  care  that  the  testimony 
afforded  by  science  to  religion,  be  its  extent  or  value  what 
it  may,  shall  be  at  least  independent,  unbiased,  and  spontan- 
eous. We  do  not  here  allude  to  such  reasoners  as  would 
make  all  nature  bend  to  their  narrow  interpretations  of 
obscure  and  difficult  passages  in  the  sacred  writings :  such  a 
course  might  well  become  the  persecutors  of  Galileo  and 
the  other  bigots  of  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries,  but 
can  only  be  adopted  by  dreamers  in  the  present  age.  But, 
without  going  these  lengths,  it  is  no  uncommon  thing  to 
find  persons  earnestly  attached  to  science,  and  anxious  for 
its  promotion,  who  yet  manifest  a  morbid  sensibility  on 
points  of  this  kind, — who  exult  and  applaud  when  any  fact 
starts  up  explanatory  (as  they  suppose)  of  some  scriptural 
allusion,  and  who  feel  pained  and  disappointed  when  the 
general  course  of  discovery  in  any  department  of  science 
runs  wide  of  the  notions  with  which  particular  passages  in 
the  Bible  may  have  impressed  themselves.  To  persons  of 
such  a  frame  of  mind  it  ought  to  suffice  to  remark,  on  the 
one  hand,  that  truth  can  never  be  opposed  to  truth,  and,  on 
the  other,  that  error  is  only  to  be  effectually  confounded 
by  searching  deep  and  tracing  it  to  its  source.  Neverthe- 
less, it  were  much  to  be  wished  that  such  persons,  estimable 
and  excellent  as  they  for  the  most  part  are,  before  they 
throw  the  weight  of  their  applause  or  discredit  into  the 
scale  of  scientific  opinion  on  such  grounds,  would  reflect, 
first,  that  the  credit  and  respectability  of  any  evidence  may 
be  destroyed  by  tampering  with  its  honesty,  and,  secondly, 
that  this  very  disposition  of  mind  implies  a  lurking  mistrust 
in  its  own  principles,  since  the  grand  and  indeed  only  char- 
acter of  truth  is  its  capability  of  enduring  the  test  of  univer- 
sal experience,  and  coming  unchanged  out  of  every  possible 
form  of  fair  discussion."  (Discourse  on  the  Study  of  Nat- 
ural Philosophy,  pp.  6,  7,  8.) 


460 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


A  Further  Examination  of  Certain  Recent  Assaults 
on  Physical  Science. 


One  of  the  chief  characteristics  of  the  last  hundred  years 
has  been  the  amazing  activity  and  diligence  with  which 
God's  material  universe  has  been  studied,  and  the  conse- 
quent wonderful  increase  in  man's  knowledge  concerning 
the  laws  and  the  history  of  that  universe.  Doubtless  the 
extent  of  this  knowledge  is  still  very  narrow  in  comparison 
with  what  may  hereafter  be  acquired;  but  it  is  very  wide 
when  compared  with  what  had  been  gained  a  hundred  years 
ago.  This  is  so  familiar  a  truth  to  even  the  moderately  well- 
informed  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  undertake  to  prove  it  by 
entering  into  details.  School-boys'  orations  are  rilled  with 
glowing  periods  setting  forth  the  wonders  of  the  chemistry 
of  the  earth  and  the  stars,  of  the  electrical  current  as  it 
obeys  man's  bidding,  of  that  history  of  our  globe  in  which 
man's  creation  is  one  of  the  most  recent  modern  events. 
And  nearly  all  that  is  known  concerning  these  and  kindred 
subjects  has  been  discovered  during  the  century  which  has 
elapsed  since  1774.  Many  of  the  isolated  facts  embraced  in 
these  branches  of  science  were  known  long  before ;  and  the 
fundamental  principle  which  underlies  all  true  science — the 
law  of  uniformity — has  in  a  certain  sense  been  known  since 
the  first  day  of  Adam's  life;  for  it  is  an  essential  part  of 
man's  nature  that  he  shall  believe  in  this  principle.  But 
these  facts  were  only  imperfectly  understood,  and  this  prin- 
ciple had  been  only  partially  applied;  so  that  chemistry, 
geology,  etc.,  could  not  in  any  proper  sense  be  said  to  exist 
as  sciences.  The  increase  in  the  knowledge  of  the  classical 
languages  and  literature  which  characterised  the  fifteenth 
and  sixteenth  centuries  has  properly  been  called  the  "revival 
of  learning,"  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  there  was  an 
unbroken  succession  of  learned  men  from  the  age  of  Pericles 
in  Greece  and  that  of  Augustus  in  Rome  to  the  Medicean 
age  and  the  days  of  Bessarion,  Agricola,  and  Reuchlin. 
With  much  better  reason  may  it  be  said  that  the  whole  circle 
of  the  natural  sciences  and  many  departments  of  physical 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


461 


science  have  come  into  existence  within  a  little  more  than 
the  last  century. 

Knowledge  is  power ;  and  when  classical  learning  revived 
and  increased  the  number  of  its  votaries,  it  put  new  power 
into  their  hands — power  for  good  or  power  for  evil,  accord- 
ing to  the  character  of  him  who  wielded  it.  In  all  ages 
and  in  all  lands  those  whose  minds  are,  in  the  language  of 
the  Sacred  Scriptures,  "carnal,"  and  therefore  "enmity 
against  God,"  have  far  outnumbered  those  whose  souls  have 
been  brought  into  willing  subjection  to  the  law  of  God.  So 
it  was  when  classical  learning  revived ;  and  the  power  which 
it  gave  was  by  many  turned  against  the  most  precious  truth 
— though  it  was  in  itself  an  inestimable  good,  it  was 
employed  in  doing  the  greatest  evil.  Hence  many  well- 
meaning  persons,  sincere  friends  of  truth,  but  only  imper- 
fectly acquainted  with  that  which  they  attacked,  vigorously 
assailed  classical  learning  as  itself  a  terrible  evil  and  neces- 
sarily opposed  to  the  Christian  religion.  The  name 
"Humanist" — for  so  the  learned  were  called — came  to  be 
regarded  by  multitudes  as  synonymous  with  "unbeliever" 
and  "scoffer."  Human  learning,  these  good  people  urged, 
was  to  be  shunned  as  that  whose  tendency  was  evil  and  evil 
only.  They  overlooked  the  fact  that  it  was  not  the  learn- 
ing which  was  evil,  but  only  the  evil  use  of  the  learning; 
that  the  evil  tendency  was  not  in  the  learning,  but  in  the 
soul  of  him  who  gave  it  the  evil  direction.  So  it  has  come  to 
pass  that  we  look  back  at  these  earnest  efforts  which  were 
intended  to  defend  what  we  love  most — the  revealed  truth 
of  God — with  pity  which  is  kept  from  passing  into  contempt 
only  by  our  appreciation  of  the  pure  intentions  which 
prompted  them. 

Those  who  thought  they  were  defending  the  faith  when 
they  attacked  learning,  were  by  no  means  without  some 
appearance  of  right  on  their  side;  and  it  was  just  such  an 
appearance  as  would  mislead  their  pious  followers,  who 
knew  even  less  than  themselves  of  the  exact  meaning  of 
language  and  the  many  sides  of  truth.  They  could  quote 
God's  own  word  as  saying:  "Of  the  tree  of  the  knowledge 
of  good  and  evil,  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it;  for  in  the  day 


462 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


that  thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die."  "Thy  wisdom 
and  thy  knowledge,  it  hath  perverted  thee."  "Knowledge 
puffeth  up."  "He  that  increaseth  knowledge  increaseth 
sorrow."  "The  wisdom  of  this  world  is  foolishness  with 
God."  "Beware  lest  any  man  spoil  you  through  philoso- 
phy and  vain  deceit,  after  the  tradition  of  men,  after  the 
rudiments  of  the  world."  How  easy  to  misunderstand  these 
and  similar  passages  as  warnings  against  all  human  learn- 
ing! Therefore  we  should  not  too  sharply  reproach  these 
well-meaning  men,  or  fail  to  give  them  due  credit  for  their 
good  intentions ;  though  we  should  not  the  less  deplore 
the  effect  of  their  erroneous  teaching  that  learning  and 
faith  are  antagonistic — that  the  friend  of  human  knowledge 
must  be  the  enemy  of  God's  revealed  truth. 

In  like  manner  there  have  been  multitudes  of  good  men 
who  from  a  partial  view  of  the  truth  have  regarded  riches 
as  a  great  evil,  and  have  denounced  them  accordingly. 
Many  of  these  have  proved  their  sincerity  by  literal  obe- 
dience to  the  test  applied  by  our  Lord  to  the  young  man 
whom  he  loved :  they  have  "sold  all  that  they  had,  and  have 
distributed  unto  the  poor;"  and  then  have  joyfully  spent  the 
rest  of  their  lives  in  abject  poverty.  They  have  failed  to 
perceive  that  it  is  not  money,  but  the  love  of  money,  that 
is  the  root  of  all  evil.  They  have  heard  the  words,  "How 
hardly  shall  they  that  have  riches  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven !"  but  have  neglected  to  listen  to  the  explanation 
of  them  which  was  at  once  graciously  given :  ''Children,  how 
hard  is  it  for  them  that  trust  in  riches  to  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God !" 

After  this  sad  history,  it  cannot  surprise  us  that  physical 
science  has  been  similarly  perverted  and  similarly 
denounced.  As  it  is  unhappily  true  that  the  majority  of 
men,  even  in  so-called  Christian  lands,  have  not  been  con- 
verted to  faith  in  Christ,  so  doubtless  the  majority  of  those 
who  cultivate  physical  science  are  unconverted  men.  And 
as  some  unconverted  men  have  in  their  assaults  upon  the 
Holy  Bible  employed  classical  learning  and  genius  and 
wealth  and  labor,  which  are  all  in  themselves  good  things 
and  to  be  very  highly  prized,  so  unbelieving  men  of  science 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


463 


have  sought  in  their  science  for  weapons  against  that  body 
of  truth  which  infinitely  transcends  all  other  in  value  and 
importance. 

This  has  been  attended  with  the  usual  consequences  :  as 
some  good  men  thought  that  they  were  verily  doing  God 
service  by  denouncing  classical  learning,  wealth,  and  other 
such  things,  so  now  some  good  men  are  found  who  hon- 
estly think  that  they  are  contending  earnestly  for  the  faith 
once  delivered  to  the  saints  when  they  raise  the  loud  cry  of 
warning  against  physical  science  as  a  whole  or  in  its  several 
parts.  Like  the  worthy  men  before  spoken  of,  they  are  per- 
fectly sincere,  and  they  mean  well ;  and  their  pure  aims 
should  receive  the  just  meed  of  commendation.  But  their 
aims,  however  pure  and  praiseworthy,  do  not  make  true 
that  which  is  false ;  and  even  though  good  men,  prompted 
by  the  best  motives,  shut  their  eyes  to  the  truth,  and  dili- 
gently labor  to  destroy  it.  it  is  a  happy  thing  that  truth  is  of 
such  a  nature  that  it  cannot  be  destroyed. 

The  conduct  of  men  of  science  and  learning,  on  the  one 
hand,  who  contend  that  their  learning  and  science  are  true, 
and  that  there  is  no  other  truth ;  and  of  believers  in  revela- 
tion, on  the  other,  who  contend  that  revelation  is  absolute 
truth,  and  that  everything  else  is  false  or  doubtful — must 
remind  us  of  the  trite  but  true  illustration  presented  in  the 
story  of  the  contest  between  the  two  noble  knights  before 
the  shield  of  silver  and  gold.  Those  who  open  their  eyes 
and  are  willing  to  see  all  that  God's  blessed  light  will  show 
them,  who  walk  around  the  shield  and  on  all  sides  view  its 
beauties,  whether  carved  in  shining  silver  or  in  resplendent 
gold,  know  that  both  are  right  in  what  they  assert,  both 
wrong  in  what  they  deny.  Let  us  hope  that  the  real  com- 
batants now  contending  for  what  each  believes  to  be  the 
truth  in  science  and  in  religion — for  what  is  truth,  though 
only  partial — may  not  have  the  discovery  of  the  existence  of 
both  silver  and  golden  sides  postponed  until,  biting  the 
dust,  it  shall  be  too  late  to  use  the  perfect  shield  against  a 
common  foe. 

The  deplorable  effects  produced  by  these  assaults  on 
science  are  painfully  manifest  wherever  they  have  been 


464 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


habitually  made.  Many  are  accustomed  to  refer  to  coun- 
tries under  Roman  Catholic  influence  to  illustrate  this  point. 
And  it  is  true,  as  a  general  thing,  that  a  larger  proportion  of 
the  Romish  priesthood  than  of  the  Protestant  ministry  have 
been  strenuous  opponents  of  learning.  In  Italy,  France,  and 
Spain,  the  fact  that  so  large  a  proportion  of  men  of  learn- 
ing during  the  last  few  generations  have  been  infidels,  may 
be  fairly  attributed,  to  a  considerable  degree,  to  this  opposi- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  Romish  Church.  The  inhabitants 
of  these  lands  have  been  taught  to  regard  science  as  infidel- 
ity, its  principles  as  inconsistent  with  Christianity;  hence, 
when  any  of  them  come  to  see  clearly  that  science  is  truth, 
and  that  its  principles  are  those  which  necessarily  control 
every  act  of  their  lives,  they  are  forced  to  reject  as  a  fable 
whatever  comes  in  conflict  with  it,  as  their  religious  teachers 
tell  them  Christianity  does.  This  does  not  render  guiltless 
their  denial  of  the  shield's  priceless  golden  side,  but  it  cer- 
tainly palliates  the  guilt.  But  how  unutterably  sad  is  this 
spectacle — the  professed  guardians  of  the  truth  which 
reveals  the  way  of  life,  driving  to  eternal  death  those  who 
come  asking  them  what  they  shall  do  to  be  saved ! 

But  while  we  recognise  these  facts  in  Romish  lands,  we 
cannot  as  Protestants  thank  God  that  in  this  respect  we  are 
not  as  other  men  are.  We  do  not  forget  that  it  was  a 
Romish  court  that  condemned  as  infidel  the  teachings  of 
Galileo;  we  do  not  forget  that,  during  a  visit  to  a  college 
in  Rome  as  late  as  1856,  one  of  the  professors  held  up  his 
hands  in  holy  horror  when  we  inquired  who  was  the  Pro- 
fessor of  Geology — with  amazement  (perhaps  feigned)  he 
asked  how  we  could  think  that  that  infidel  science  could  be 
taught  in  a  college  under  the  immediate  control  of  the  Papal 
government!  But  we  remember  also  that  the  Protestant 
Luther  bluntly  pronounced  Copernicus  a  fool;  that  Me- 
lanchthon  went  as  far  as  the  Romish  court  in  condemning 
infidel  science — that  is,  the  Copernican  system ;  and  that  the 
great  Presbyterian  theologian,  Turrettin,  in  his  teachings 
was  not  a  whit  behind  either.  That  we  may  do  no  injustice, 
let  us  further  remember  that  Copernicus  dedicated  his  great 
work  to  Pope  Paul  III.,  who  graciously  accepted  the  dedica- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


465 


tion;  that  in  later  days,  within  forty  years,  but  while  the 
Papal  temporal  power  was  in  full  vigor,  Cardinal  Wiseman 
delivered  in  Rome  his  admirable  lectures  in  which  he  earn- 
estly maintains  the  truth  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  truth  of 
modern  science;  and  that  to-day,  in  the  famous  Roman 
Catholic  College  at  Maynooth  in  Ireland,  the  Professor  of 
Theology,  Dr.  Molloy,  does  the  same  thing,  showing  "that 
the  study  of  God's  works  is  not  incompatible  with  the 
belief  in  God's  word ;  and  that  it  is  quite  possible  to  investi- 
gate the  ancient  history  of  the  world  we  inhabit  without 
forfeiting  our  right  to  a  better."  While  therefore  we  may 
on  the  whole  claim  for  Protestantism  some  superiority  in 
this  matter,  surely,  in  view  of  the  facts  just  mentioned,  that 
superiority  is  not  so  marked  as  to  afford  very  good  ground 
for  vain-glorious  boasting. 

In  Great  Britain,  in  Switzerland,  in  North  America,  and 
in  Germany,  though  perhaps  to  a  more  limited  extent  in 
the  country  last  named  wrhen  compared  with  the  great 
number  of  its  learned  authors,  there  have  been  numerous 
writers,  both  ministers  and  laymen,  who,  after  becoming 
acquainted  with  both  sides  of  the  question,  have  labored 
faithfully  and  successfully  in  showing  that  Christianity  and 
modern  science  are  not  at  variance.  Some  of  these  writers 
have  no  doubt  pursued  erroneous  methods  and  reached 
untenable  conclusions;  but  of  what  can  this  not  be  said? 
The  general  result  of  their  labors  has  been  most  happy — 
directly,  in  promoting  the  reception  of  the  truth;  and 
indirectly,  in  removing  obstacles  which  would  prevent  its 
reception. 

But  on  the  other  hand,  in  all  these  Protestant  lands  there 
are  not  a  few  religious  teachers  who  are  continually  bring- 
ing railing  accusations  against  natural  science — who 
habitually  denounce  it  in  the  most  sweeping  manner  as 
vain  philosophy  and  science  falsely  so-called,  as  utterly 
opposed  to  all  the  blessed  truths  made  known  to  us  in  God's 
word.  From  what  has  been  already  said,  the  baleful 
influence  of  such  teachings  may  be  easily  inferred.  And  the 
inference  drawn  is  confirmed  by  facts  which  may  be 
observed  by  any  who  may  desire.    As  we  need  hardly  say, 


30— w 


466 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


many  Christian  pulpits  are  occupied  by  those  who  are  too 
well-informed  to  have  any  disposition  to  attack  any  part  of 
God's  truth;  but  we  must  confess,  from  personal  observa- 
tion in  this  and  other  lands,  that  many  others  combine  with 
the  preaching  of  the  gospel  the  undiscriminating  denuncia- 
tion of  all  modern  science  as  infidel.  Of  course  no  single 
observer  could  determine  the  relative  prevalence  of  such 
teachings  in  different  lands ;  but  it  has  been  our  lot  to  hear 
them  most  frequently  from  German  pulpits;  next  in  fre- 
quency come  pulpits  in  the  United  States,  North  and  South ; 
occasionally  we  have  heard  them  from  the  lips  of  Swiss  pas- 
tors among  their  own  mountains ;  and  never  in  the  churches 
of  Great  Britain.  What  are  the  inevitable  effects  produced 
by  such  preaching  on  all  who  know  what  modern  science  is, 
but  who  are  seeking  instruction  as  to  the  truth  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion?  Here  again  observation  would  discover  these 
effects  to  be  most  deplorable.  We  number  not  a  few 
amongst  our  most  honored  friends  whom  nothing  could 
induce  to  enter  a  church,  because  their  experience  has 
taught  them  that  if  they  were  to  enter,  they  would  not  fail 
to  hear  themselves  pronounced  infidels  or  atheists,  along 
with  all  others  who  accept  scientific  truth.  As  one  of  these 
friends  once  said  to  us,  when  justifying  his  refusal  to  attend 
church,  he  had  not  in  former  years  found  it  beneficial  to  his 
moral  character  or  in  any  way  edifying  to  listen  to  such 
falsehood  taught  in  the  name  of  God. 

It  might  be  said  that  the  errors  thus  proclaimed  from  the 
pulpit  should  be  allowed  to  pass  by  unheeded,  and  the 
sound  religious  truth  accepted.  But  every  one  knows  that 
in  most  instances  this  is  not  done  and  cannot  be  expected. 
The  hearer  will  take  it  for  granted  that,  however  ignorant 
of  science  the  preacher  may  be,  he  is  at  least  acquainted  with 
the  religion  of  which  he  is  a  professed  teacher.  When  this 
teacher,  professing  to  speak  as  God's  ambassador,  solemnly 
pronounces  religion  and  science  inconsistent  with  each  other, 
the  hearer,  knowing  the  truth  of  science,  rejects  religion — 
and,  fearful  consequence,  loses  his  own  soul.  But  though 
the  preacher  desires  beyond  all  else  the  salvation  of  his 
hearers  by  bringing  them  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth  as 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


467 


it  is  in  Jesus,  has  he  not  in  such  a  case  helped  to  prevent  the 
rescue  of  that  soul  from  eternal  death? 

It  is  the  truth  involved  in  this  terrible  question  which 
gives  importance  to  the  subject  under  discussion.  It  is  not 
a  difference  about  mere  words,  or  a  dispute  on  some  doubt- 
ful point  in  science  or  philosophy,  or  even  such  matters 
as  separate  one  evangelical  denomination  of  Christians  from 
another;  all  which  may  be  quite  important  in  a  certain 
sense,  but  which  dwindle  into  insignificance  by  the  side  of 
that  with  which  we  here  have  to  do.  Assuming,  as  must 
be  done  by  all  who  care  to  engage  in  such  a  discussion,  that 
faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  therefore  in  the  Scrip- 
tures which  testify  of  him,  means  salvation — life  everlasting, 
bliss  forever  in  the  presence  of  God ;  and  that  the  denial  of 
the  Scriptures  and  therefore  the  rejection  of  the  crucified 
Messiah,  means  eternal  death — weeping  and  wailing  and 
gnashing  of  teeth,  where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fire 
is  not  quenched ; — assuming  this,  and  the  appalling  magni- 
tude of  the  subject  is  at  once  seen.  Who  then  can  blame 
those  who  believe  that  modern  science  leads  to  the  rejection 
of  the  Scriptures,  for  the  most  solemn  and  earnest  warnings 
against  science?  And,  on  the  other  hand,  since  we  know 
that  these  warnings  and  the  teachings  connected  with  them 
are  certain  to  lead  persons  properly  informed  as  to  the 
truth  of  science,  but  who  believe  that  such  teachings  fairly 
represent  the  Scriptures,  necessarily  to  reject  the  Scriptures, 
should  we  be  blamed  for  strenuously  resisting  these  erro- 
neous doctrines,  and  exposing  their  errors  with  unsparing 
hand,  even  though  it  should  bring  us  into  personal  collision 
with  those  whom  we  most  highly  esteem?  Should  we  not 
most  earnestly  strive  to  save  all  whom  we  can  influence 
from  the  fatal  error  that  they  must  abandon  the  science  they 
know  to  be  truth  in  order  to  secure  the  salvation  through 
the  Saviour  revealed  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures? 

Under  the  influence  of  such  feelings  and  motives  as  these, 
we  undertook  in  the  number  of  this  journal  for  July,  1873,  a 
careful  examination  of  certain  recent  assaults  on  physical 
science.  These  assaults,  as  seen  above,  unhappily  have  not 
been  confined  to  a  single  part  of  the  world;  but,  as  our 


468 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


object  was  wholly  practical,  we  thought  it  was  hardly  worth 
while  to  examine  them  in  the  forms  in  which  they  have 
been  presented  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic,  or  even 
in  the  remoter  parts  of  the  United  States.  Our  hope  was 
primarily  to  influence  those  who  are  connected  with  our 
own  branch  of  the  Church  of  Christ ;  and  we  therefore  chose 
for  examination  the  views  earnestly  and  continuously  set 
forth  by  one  whom  we  regard  as  their  ablest  defender  in 
our  Church.  As  the  promotion  of  truth  was  our  only  aim, 
we  chose  the  publications  of  one  who  could  most  easily  and 
successfully  prove  us  in  error,  if  we  are  in  error.  Most 
gladly  would  we  accept  defeat  in  all  our  arguments,  if  these 
are  not  in  accordance  with  the  truth  of  God.  Such  were  our 
reasons  for  choosing  for  examination  the  numerous  publi- 
cations of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Dabney :  a  gentleman  who  for  talent 
and  zeal  and  earnestness  and  many  estimable  qualities 
deserves  to  be  highly  honored  by  all  who  know  him;  and 
who  is  capable  of  exposing  our  errors  and  saving  others 
from  injury  by  them,  should  we  be  resisting  the  truth  and 
endeavoring  to  lead  others  astray. 

In  the  article  referred  to,  we  attempted  to  prove  that  the 
objections  which  Dr.  Dabney  has  for  many  years  been  urg- 
ing against  physical  science,  are  (in  our  opinion)  without 
foundation,  and  therefore  that  no  one  should  be  influenced 
by  him  to  assume  a  hostile  attitude  towards  that  depart- 
ment of  knowledge.  We  examined  his  arguments  in  detail, 
and  think  it  was  made  clear  that  he  has  gravely  erred.  Since 
he  is  justly  regarded  as  an  accurate  reasoner  on  many  sub- 
jects, we  deemed  it  proper  to  account  for  his  errors  by 
pointing  out  his  want  of  acquaintance  with  science.  If  a 
writer  is  not  acquainted  with  the  subject  he  is  discussing,  it 
surely  would  be  unwise  to  follow  his  lead — the  antecedent 
probability  is  that  he  will  certainly  go  astray,  however 
splendid  his  abilities  or  accurate  his  judgment  when  exer- 
cised upon  matters  with  which  he  is  conversant.  Except  for 
this  reason,  there  would  have  been  no  propriety  in  calling 
attention  to  Dr.  Dabney's  want  of  familiarity  with  natural 
science.  But  when  we  had  to  choose  between  this  course, 
and  the  giving  up  of  a  good  reason  for  warning  our  read- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


469 


ers  against  following  his  teachings  on  this  subject,  we  could 
not  hesitate.  When  in  his  "Memoir"  published  in  1866,  he 
said,  "The  spirit  of  these  sciences  is  essentially  infidel  and 
rationalistic;  they  are  arrayed,  in  all  their  phases,  on  the 
side  of  skepticism ;"  (Central  Presbyterian,  Oct.  31,  1866;) 
and  in  his  Lectures,  that  the  "tendencies  of  geologists"  are 
"atheistic,"  (Lectures,  p.  178;)  and  when  we  saw  that  the 
general  acceptance  of  these  statements  by  teachers  of  Chris- 
tianity, must  inevitably  drive  multitudes  to  the  very  soul- 
destroying  infidelity  against  which  he  raises  the  warning 
cry,  we  had  no  option.  There  could  be  no  impropriety  in 
calling  general  attention  to  what  is  so  clear  to  every  scien- 
tific reader  of  his  writings — that  he  attributes  "rationalis- 
tic," "infidel,"  and  even  "atheistic"  tendencies  to  these 
sciences  solely  because  he  is  imperfectly  acquainted  with 
their  methods  and  aims. 

To  our  examination  of  his  long-continued  and  oft-repeated 
assaults,  Dr.  Dabney  published  an  answer  in  the  October 
number  of  this  Review.  The  main  point  of  the  answer  is 
perhaps  correctly  condensed  into  this — that  we  misunder- 
stood him ;  that  it  was  not  physical  science  that  he  assailed, 
but  the  infidel  abuses  of  science,  or  science  falsely  so-called. 
Granting  that  this  may  be  so,  it  does  not  set  aside  the  neces- 
sity for  our  examination ;  for  it  was  his  published  words  as 
generally  understood  that  we  examined,  and  not  his  own 
conception  of  their  meaning.  We  do  not  think  we  misun- 
derstood* these  published  words ;  but  if  we  did,  we  fur- 

*However  it  may  be  as  to  the  misunderstanding  of  his  writings  gen- 
erally, we  have  to  confess  that  we  cannot  possibly  understand  the  first 
sentence  of  his  answer,  when  he  says:  "In  May,  1869,  (not  1866,)  I 
addressed  a  memorial  on  theological  education,  not  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly, but  to  the  Committee  on  Theological  Seminaries."  S.  P.  R.,  p.  539. 
This  seems  to  be  a  denial  of  something  we  had  said;  and  yet  it  cannot 
be;  for  every  statement  we  made  was  strictly  correct.  Of  course  Dr. 
Dabney  cannot  mean  to  disown  his  "Memoir"  on  Theological  Education 
which  he  published,  as  we  stated,  in  the  Central  Presbyterian  in  October, 
1866.    We  cannot  tell  what  he  does  mean. 

As  to  the  modified  form  of  his  "Memoir"  of  1866,  namely,  the 
"Memorial"  presented  to  the  General  Assembly  in  1869,  we  can  hardly 
suppose  it  worth  while  to  discuss  the  very  minute  question  which  the  next 
seeming  denial  appears  to  raise.  Rather  than  argue  whether  or  not 
sending  a  document  to  the  committee  of  a  body  is  the  same  as  sending 
it  to  the  body  itself,  or  whether  or  not  a  document  can  be  sent  to  a 
committee  except  through  the  body  which  appoints  it,  we  give  up  at  once. 


470 


DR.   JAMES  WOODROW. 


nished  at  every  step  the  amplest  means  of  correcting  our 
misapprehensions,  by  full  and  fair  quotations  from  the  pub- 
lications on  which  we  were  commenting. 

We  sincerely  wish  that  Dr.  Dabney  was  right  when  he 
says  he  "presumes  Dr.  Woodrow  is  the  only  reader  who  has 
so  misconceived"  his  meaning;  but  he  is  not.  We  have 
conversed  with  a  large  number  of  intelligent  persons  who 
have  read  his  various  writings ;  and  so  far  as  we  remember, 
all  have  understood  him  just  as  we  do,  whether  agreeing 
with  his  views  or  ours.  No  doubt  he  himself  believes  that 
he  does  not  oppose  true  science;  how  could  it  be  other- 
wise? No  honest  man  can  denounce  as  false  what  he 
believes  to  be  true;  and  in  his  warfare  Dr.  Dabney  is  of 
course  thoroughly  honest.  If  opposition  to  true  science  had 
been  attributed  to  the  honored  and  learned  Melanchthon, 
would  he  not  have  repelled  the  charge  ?  Would  he  not  have 
said  it  was  not  the  true  science  of  astronomy  that  he 
attacked ;  it  was  only  the  infidel  system  of  Copernicus  which 
he  "disallowed"?  The  error  is  as  to  what  constitutes  true 
science.  We  cannot  but  regard  Dr.  Dabney  as  erring  when 
he  thinks  he  avoided  attacking  "sound  physical  science." 
He  has  again  and  again  attacked  its  objects,  its  methods, 
and  its  results.  The  very  pages  on  which  he  exclaims 
against  our  misconception  of  his  meaning,  prove  that  we 

If  shelter  is  needed,  we  shelter  ourselves  behind  the  Minutes  of  the 
General  Assembly,  which  show  that  that  venerable  body  made  the  same 
mistake,  in  thinking  the  "Memorial"  had  been  sent  to  it;  for  it  took  the 
liberty  of  referring  it  to  its  committee,  just  as  if  the  author  had  not 
already  sent  it  there!  (Minutes,  Vol.  II.,  p.  373.)  But  we  cannot  help 
wondering  whether  the  author  meant  to  deny  anything  in  this  first 
sentence;  and  if  so,  what? 

We  are  equally  unable  to  comprehend  what  he  means  on  page  542, 
when  he  says,  "Dr.  W.'s  zeal  could  find  but  three  blows  in  seven  years." 
We  had  enumerated  four.  Now  we  would  have  to  add  another,  making 
five,  delivered  through  this  Review  in  July,  1861,  in  his  article  on 
"Geology  and  the  Bible."  But  such  points  cannot  be  of  the  least  conse- 
quence in  any  possible  respect.  Dr.  Dabney  could  not  intend  to 
contradict  the  statements  we  made;  for  he  is  perfectly  aware  of  their 
entire  accuracy. 

Another  point  which  it  seems  best  to  speak  of  in  a  note,  is  the  author's 
complaint  (p.  540)  that  in  the  matter  of  the  "Memorial"  a  hearing  was 
refused  him.  We  wish  to  say  that  we  have  done  what  we  could  to 
secure  him  a  hearing.  More  than  a  year  ago,  one  of  our  fellow-editors 
wrote  to  him,  with  our  hearty  concurrence,  requesting  him  to  send  the 
"Memorial,"  that  it  might  be  published  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian 
Review.    To  this  request  the  author  did  not  accede. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


471 


did  not  misconceive  his  language,  however  his  language 
may  have  failed  to  set  forth  his  meaning.  He  asks  with 
some  impatience,  "Why  may  I  not  be  credited  as  under- 
standing and  meaning  what  I  said?"  "Why  may  it  not  be 
supposed  that  I  was  not  an  ignoramus,  and  so,  was  consist- 
ent with  myself,  and  knew  what  I  was  saying?"  (P.  543.) 
Now,  even  if  the  word  "ignoramus"  were  in  our  vocabu- 
lary, we  have  too  high  an  appreciation  of  Dr.  Dabney's 
varied  learning  and  accomplishments  to  apply  it  to  him.  No 
human  being  can  comprehend  the  whole  circle  of  knowl- 
edge ;  and  yet  it  does  not  follow  that  every  human  being  is 
an  "ignoramus."  We  ought  not  to  be  regarded  as  represent- 
ing any  one  as  an  "ignoramus"  when  we  point  out  that  he  is 
inconsistent  with  himself.  Our  whole  argument  against  Dr. 
Dabney's  opinions  respecting  physical  science  would  be 
worthless  if  he  is  consistent  with  himself;  for  he  undoubt- 
edly maintains  the  truth  with  regard  to  many  subjects, 
though,  as  we  suppose,  not  with  regard  to  all.  Now,  truth 
is  always  consistent  with  itself;  error  is  not.  Therefore 
error  may  be  proved  by  pointing  out  inconsistency. 

Let  us  compare  a  few  of  the  positions  maintained,  and 
observe  how  they  endure  this  test. 

1.  On  pages  543  and  549  the  author  gives  us  the  two  fol- 
lowing definitions  of  the  object  of  his  attack: 

(a)  "The  anti-Christian  science  which  I  disallow  was 
here  expressly  separated  from  this  sound  physical  science. 
But  again :  In  the  introduction  of  the  Sermon  I  hasten  to 
separate  and  define  the  thing  I  attack.  On  page  2,  I  tell  my 
readers  that  it  is  the  'prevalent,  vain/  physical  philosophy. 
Now  every  one  knows  it  is  the  materialistic  philosophy  of 
Lamarck,  Chambers,  ('Vestiges,')  Darwin,  Hooker,  Hux- 
ley, Tyndall,  Herbert  Spencer,  Buechner,  which  is  now  the 
'prevalent'  one."    P.  543. 

(b)  "As  I  defined  my  meaning  in  the  Sermon,  page  2, 
these  sciences  of  geology,  natural  history,  and  ethnology, 
now  exciting  so  much  popular  attention,  'always  have  some 
tendency  to  become  anti-theological.'  "    P.  549. 

The  author  thus  first  defines  the  thing  attacked  as  "anti- 
Christian  science,"  and  "materialistic  philosophy";  then  as 


472 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


"these  sciences  of  geology,  natural  history,  and  ethnology." 
Is  he  here  consistent  or  not?  If  he  is,  he  pronounces  "geol- 
ogy, natural  history,  and  ethnology"  "anti-Christian"  and 
"materialistic  philosophy" — that  is,  he  attacks  geology,  etc., 
as  false.  The  only  escape  from  this  conclusion  is  in  admit- 
ting inconsistency,  struggle  as  he  may. 

2.  (a)  As  just  seen,  he  attacks  geology,  natural  history, 
and  ethnology,  because  they  are  anti-Christian  and  mate- 
rialistic— therefore  not  true  sciences  at  all. 

(b)  He  next  condemns  them  as  having  a  "tendency  to 
become  anti-theological"  because  of  the  success  with  which 
they  have  established  their  claims  as  true  sciences.  For 
he  says,  page  549,  still  speaking  of  geology,  etc. : 

"It  is  both  the  business  and  the  boast  of  physical  science 
to  resolve  as  many  effects  as  possible  into  their  second 
causes.  Repeated  and  fascinating  successes  in  these  solu- 
tions gradually  amount  to  a  temptation  to  the  mind  to  look 
less  to  the  great  First  Cause." 

Which  of  these  opposite  views  does  he  wish  us  to  regard 
him  as  holding? 

3.  (a)  He  tells  us  on  page  551  that  his  quarrel  with  Dar- 
win's and  Huxley's  natural  science  is  that  it  "does  not 
behave  at  all  as  Dr.  Woodrow's  behaves" — that  is,  in  mod- 
estly keeping  silent  respecting  questions  beyond  its 
province. 

(b)  He  then  at  once  says  true  natural  science  ought  not 
to  be  silent  about  these  questions :  that  it  is  "her  duty  to 
evolve,  as  the  crown  and  glory  of  all  her  conclusions,  the 
natural,  teleological  argument  for  the  being,  wisdom,  and 
goodness  of  a  personal  God."  Does  there  not  seem  to  be 
some  inconsistency  here?  If  our  silence  is  blameworthy, 
others  ought  not  to  be  blamed  for  speaking,  but  for  speaking 
wrong. 

We  do  not  intend  here  to  repeat  our  demonstration  (S. 
P.  R.,  pp.  351-354,)  that  all  such  questions  are  beyond  the 
province  of  natural  science ;  but  the  last  quotation  shows 
the  grave  difficulty  in  the  way  of  stating  a  proposition  which 
Dr.  Dabney  and  we  could  agree  in  maintaining — we  under- 
stand language  so  differently.     He  supposes  that  these 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


473 


questions  belong  to  natural  science ;  we  suppose  that  they 
belong  to  natural  theology — an  entirely  distinct  department 
of  knowledge,  in  which  the  objects  sought,  the  fundamental 
principles,  and  the  methods  of  reasoning  applied,  are  wholly 
different  from  those  in  natural  science.  He  thinks  they 
belong  to  some  department  of  physics ;  we  think  they  form 
a  department  of  metaphysics.  Thus  we  do  not  understand 
language  in  the  same  way;  and  therefore  we  must  contin- 
ually misunderstand  each  other. 

This  difference  in  the  use  of  language  has  led  to  other 
serious  misapprehensions  on  our  part  as  to  what  Dr.  Dab- 
ney  meant  to  say,  but  did  not,  or  at  least  did  not  in  the 
ordinary  language  of  mankind.  One  of  these,  which  he  terms 
(p.  544)  "the  most  amazing  misunderstanding,"  has  refer- 
ence to  the  meaning  of  the  same  passage  of  the  Sermon 
(pages  2  and  3)  spoken  of  above.  We  quoted  the  entire 
passage  (pp.  334,  335) ;  so  that  if  we  misrepresented  it,  we 
at  the  same  time  furnished  the  means  of  correcting  the  mis- 
representation. We  understood  the  passage  as  referring  to 
physical  science,  because  its  author  said  "physical  science" ; 
and  he  now  explains  further,  as  we  have  just  seen,  that  he 
meant  "geology,  natural  history,  and  ethnology."  In  the 
Sermon,  he  proceeds  (pages  3  and  4)  to  speak  of  "physi- 
cists," and  to  specify  the  evil  things  they  are  doing,  namely, 
asserting  the  existence  of  a  pre-Adamite  earth,  limiting  the 
Noachian  deluge,  maintaining  the  nebular  hypothesis,  etc. 
We  thought  he  thus  left  no  shadow  of  doubt  as  to  whom  he 
meant ;  and  we  criticised  this  apparent  meaning.  But  now  he 
exclaims  (p.  544)  that  we  had  "wholly  failed  to  apprehend 
what  he  was  speaking  of,"  and  calls  our  criticism  of  what  he 
says  of  physical  science  and  physicists  an  "astounding  denial 
of  the  attempt  made  by  the  followers  of  Hume  and  of 
Auguste  Comte  to  give  a  'sensualistic'  explanation  of  the 
'mind's  philosophy.'  "  He  then  proceeds  to  give  an  account 
of  the  mischievous  metaphysical  speculations  of  Hartley, 
Condillac,  Hume,  Comte,  etc. ;  and  ends  with  the  expres- 
sion of  the  "hope  that  Dr.  Woodrow  is  now  relieved,  and 
begins  to  see  what  was  the  'anti-Christian  science'  which  he 
opposed  in  his  Sermon  and  other  writings."   Well,  yes ;  we 


474 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


are  relieved — relieved  to  see  that  it  was  the  frightful  errors 
of  metaphysicians  that  he  was  combating,  and  not  physical 
science  at  all.  But  we  never  before  heard  these  meta- 
physical speculations  called  physical  science;  nor  did  we 
before  know  that  Hartley,  Condillac,  Hume,  etc.,  were 
"physicists,"  or  had  applied  themselves  to  the  questions 
which  Dr.  Dabney  specifies.  But  this  relief  does  not  set 
aside  the  necessity  for  our  former  criticisms.  We  criticised 
what  he  said,  and  not  what  it  now  turns  out  he  meant. 
When  he  said  "physical  science,"  how  could  we  tell  that  he 
meant  metaphysics?  When  he  attacked  "physicists,"  how 
could  we  tell  that  he  meant  the  metaphysicians  Hartley, 
Hume,  and  their  followers?  The  truth  is,  the  difficulty  is 
not  that  we  did  not  understand  what  he  said,  but  that  he  did 
not  say  what  it  seems  he  meant. 

As  to  the  influence  of  Comte's  Positivism  on  physical 
science,  the  following  is  the  testimony  of  Huxley,  who  sup- 
ports his  assertions  by  references  to  such  men  as  Whewell 
and  Herschel : 

"Here  are  two  propositions :  the  first,  that  the  'Philosophic 
Positive'  contains  little  or  nothing  of  any  scientific  value; 
the  second,  that  Comiism  is,  in  spirit,  anti-scientific.  I  shall 
endeavor  to  bring  forward  ample  evidence  in  support  of 
both. 

"I.  No  one  who  possesses  even  a  superficial  acquaintance 
with  physical  science  can  read  Comte's  'Lecons'  without 
becoming  aware  that  he  was  at  once  singularly  devoid  of 
real  knowledge  on  these  subjects,  and  singularly  unlucky. 
.  .  .  Appeal  to  mathematicians,  astronomers,  physicists, 
chemists,  biologists,  about  the  'Philosophic  Positive,'  and 
they  all,  with  one  consent,  begin  to  make  protestation  that, 
whatever  M.  Comte's  other  merits,  he  has  shed  no  light 
upon  the  philosophy  of  their  particular  studies."  {Lay  Ser- 
mons, etc.,  pp.  154,  155.) 

Perhaps  we  ought  here  to  speak  of  Dr.  Dabney's  allusion 
to  our  correspondence  last  April  and  May.  We  had  sup- 
posed that  the  correspondence  was  private ;  but  of  course  we 
have  no  objection  to  its  publication.  Since,  however,  part  of 
it  has  been  published,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  publish  all  of 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


475 


it;  so  that  if  it  has  any  bearing  on  the  question  under  dis- 
cussion, it  may  all  be  before  the  reader's  mind.* 
Here  are  the  omitted  parts  of  the  correspondence : 

"Columbia,  S.  C,  April  26,  1873. 
"Rev.  Dr.  R.  L.  Dabney, 

"Rev.  and  Dear  Sir :  As  I  promised  during  our  conversa- 
tion at  Richmond  last  May,  on  the  recovery  of  my  health 
last  winter  I  began  a  diligent  examination  of  your  views 
respecting  physical  science,  as  expressed  in  your  various 
publications.  I  am  sorry  I  am  obliged  to  say  that  the  more 
I  studied  the  principles  which  you  advocate,  the  more  I 
became  convinced  that  they  are  not  well-founded;  and  not 
only  so,  but  that  very  great  evil  must  result  from  their 
general  adoption.  To  such  an  extent  did  it  seem  to  me  cer- 
tain that  your  assaults  on  physical  science  must  do  great 
harm  to  Christian  belief,  which  we  both  regard  as  beyond 
all  else  in  importance  and  value,  that  I  was  constrained  to 
write  out  some  of  my  objections  to  your  views,  and  to  offer 
them  to  my  fellow-editors  for  publication  in  the  Southern 
Presbyterian  Review,  in  the  hope  of  counteracting,  if  I 
can,  what  appear  to  me  the  inevitable  tendencies  of  your 

*With  reference  to  our  letter,  Dr.  Dabney  says,  page  545:  "At  the  end 
of  last  April,  (two  months  before  the  publication  of  Dr.  Woodrow,)  he 
did  me  the  honor  to  write  me  very  courteously,  at  the  prompting  of  a 
good  man,  a  friend  of  peace,  notifying  me  of  his  intended  critique."  On 
this  point  we  may  be  allowed  to  say  we  did  not  suppose  we  were  doing 
anything  ''very  courteous,"  as  Dr.  Dabney  says  we  were,  in  giving  him 
notice  of  our  intended  reply  to  his  numerous  (supposed)  attacks  on 
physical  science.  We  thought  it  only  fair  to  do  as  we  did.  If  it  were 
worth  while  discussing  such  a  question,  it  might  admit  of  debate  how  far 
true  courtesy  would  allow  one  to  attribute  to  us  this  commendable  quality 
in  one  breath,  and  in  the  next  breath  seek  to  deprive  us  of  the  credit  of 
it  by  saying  that  we  wrote  the  "very  courteous"  letter,  not  of  our  own 
motion,  not  because  we  thought  it  right  and  fair,  but  "at  the  'prompting 
of  a  good  man,  a  friend  of  peace."  We  shall  not  discuss  this  question; 
but  we  must  say,  while  Dr.  Dabney  of  course  believed  what  he  here 
asserts,  that,  courteous  or  not,  he  is  in  error  as  to  the  fact.  If  our 
writing  the  letter  was  very  courteous,  we  are  entitled  to  all  the  credit  of 
it — it  was  written  at  the  prompting  of  no  one;  though  heartily  approved 
by  friends  to  whom  we  mentioned  the  intention.  But  in  view  of  Dr. 
Dabney's  closing  paragraph,  where  he  says,  "If  my  haste  or  carelessness 
has  let  slip  one  word  which  to  the  impartial  reader  savors  of  aggression 
or  retaliation,  I  desire  that  word  to  be  blotted  from  memory" — we  are 
not  disposed  to  say  more  than  that  this  is  one  point  needing  to  be 
covered  by  it. 


476 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


teachings  on  this  subject.  My  article  has  been  accepted, 
and  will  appear  in  the  July  number. 

"Profoundly  impressed  with  the  magnitude  of  the  evils  I 
fear,  I  have  attempted  with  the  utmost  plainness  to  prove 
you  wrong;  but  not  with  the  remotest  intention  of  wound- 
ing you  unnecessarily.  And,  as  possibly  may  be  the  case, 
you  will  desire  to  prove  me  wrong,  I  am  sure  my  fellow- 
editors  will  accord  all  to  you  that  they  have  done  to  me. 

"I  have  understood  that  you  are  expecting  to  go  to 
Europe  next  month.  If  so,  I  would  be  glad  to  know  what 
your  address  will  be,  in  order  that  I  may  cause  advance 
sheets  to  be  forwarded  to  you.  Of  course,  if  you  remain  in 
Virginia,  it  will  be  a  matter  of  no  consequence,  as  you  will 
receive  the  article  in  the  Reziew.  I  am  expecting  myself 
to  sail  on  the  ioth  prox.  I  would  be  glad  to  take  a  few 
walks  with  you — say,  in  the  Saarbriick  Coal  basin  or 
similar  localities — that  we  might  discuss  together  in  pres- 
ence of  what  we  would  see,  the  validity  of  your  idea  that 
immediate  creative  power  may  have  produced  such  things. 
"Yours  very  truly, 

James  Woodrow." 

The  greater  part  of  Dr.  Dabney's  reply  to  this  letter  is 
printed  on  pages  545-548;  the  following  parts  are  given  to 
complete  it: 

"I  must,  in  candor,  also  preface  what  I  have  to  say  with 
the  confession  that,  should  I  be  convicted  of  'lese-majeste' 
against  your  Queen  science,  Geology,  I  cannot  palliate  it  by 
the  plea  of  ignorance.  I  have  read  so  many  treatises  by 
leading  authors  of  the  different  schools,  examined  so  many 
points,  pondered  the  showing  of  their  exponents  so  care- 
fully for  at  least  twenty-five  years,  that  I  must  presume  I 
have  the  plain  data  before  my  mind ;  the  only  other  supposi- 
tion would  be  that  their  own  advocates  are  most  incompe- 
tent in  stating  them  as  they  wish  them  to  be  apprehended ; 
or  that  I  am  of  defective  intellect.  .  .  . 

"Now  either  that  is  a  demonstration,  or  I  am  getting  into 
my  dotage.  But,  if  I  am,  there  are  a  good  many  more  fools 
besides  me.  I  have  submitted  this  argument  to  some  of  the 
best  trained  minds  in  America,  on  its  own  merits;  statesmen, 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


477 


University  Masters  of  Arts,  Professors.    Dr.   ,  for 

instance,  says  it  is  impregnable.  I  heard  him  enounce  sub- 
stantially the  same  conclusion,  with  that  clear  cut,  yet 
abstract  accuracy  for  which  his  mind  is  so  admirable,  in 
about  these  words :  'To  the  theist  no  a  posteriori  reasoning 

can  reveal  an  dpxv  f°r  Nature.'   Dr.  is  with  me,  so 

Dr.  . 

"But  I  suppose  you  still  suspect  'a  cat  in  the  meal  bag,' 
and  want  to  know  what  it  is.  What  use  is  to  be  made  of  this 
conclusion,  if  admitted?  .  .  . 

"The  report  of  my  journey  to  Europe  is  erroneous.  I 
hope  that  your  journey  thence  will  prove  a  great  benefit  to 
your  health  as  well  as  a  great  pleasure.  I  am  just  recover- 
ing from  a  severe  spell  of  illness;  for  this  reason  I  hope 
you  will  excuse  the  imperfections  of  this  letter. 

"Very  faithfully  yours, 

R.  L.  Dabney." 

Dr.  Dabney  felicitates  himself  on  page  548  on  having  in 
this  letter  chosen  terms  exactly  adapted  to  remove  the  mis- 
apprehensions as  to  his  meaning  into  which  we  had  fallen, 
just  as  if  he  had  "been  prophet  enough  to  foresee  them." 
Now,  we  do  not  wish  to  disparage  his  prophetic  foresight: 
but  we  cannot  help  saying  he  here  furnishes  no  proof  of  it — 
all  that  was  needed  to  "foresee"  how  we  would  understand 
him,  was  merely  to  consider  how  any  one  else  (except  him- 
self it  seems)  would  necessarily  understand  what  he  had 
published,  and  shape  the  prophecy  accordingly.  He  next 
complains  that  his  letter  probably  did  not  avail  to  change 
one  word  in  our  "Examination."  He  is  quite  right;  it  did 
not  avail  to  change  one  word,  and  that  for  several  reasons. 
Not  to  speak  of  the  fact  that,  in  consequence  of  our  desire  to 
see  the  article  correctly  printed,  it  was  already  in  type  when 
we  received  the  letter — it  reached  us  on  Saturday,  May  3d, 
and  we  left  home  on  Tuesday,  May  6th — it  had  no  effect, 
and  should  have  had  none,  because  our  object  was  not  to 
change  Dr.  Dabney's  views — we  hardly  dared  to  hope  for 
that — but  to  protect  from  fatal  error  those  who  were  in 
danger  of  being  misled  by  them.  Hence,  if  his  private 
letter  had  contained  a  full  and  fair  statement  of  what  we 


478 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


regard  as  truth,  it  should  not  have  affected  in  the  least  our 
published  examination  of  his  published  writings.  But  the 
truth  is,  the  letter  contains  much  that  it  is  impossible  to 
receive,  notwithstanding  his  more  cautious  manner  of  stat- 
ing his  position. 

We  ought  to  say,  however,  in  all  candor,  that  the  letter 
was  not  wholly  without  effect  on  us.  In  one  respect  it 
relieved  us  no  little.  Necessary  as  it  had  been  in  the 
course  of  our  argument  to  show  that  the  writer  was  not 
very  well  acquainted  with  natural  science,  we  could  hardly 
keep  from  blaming  ourselves  for  having  done  so ;  especially 
in  view  of  the  admission  contained  in  the  Lectures,  p.  173, 
"Without  presuming  to  teach  technical  geology,  for  which 
I  profess  no  qualification and  in  the  Sermon,  p.  8,  "We 
have  no  occasion,  as  defenders  of  that  word,  to  compare  or 
contest  any  geologic  or  biologic  theories.  We  may  be  pos- 
sessed neither  of  the  knowledge  nor  ability  for  entering  that 
field,  as  I  freely  confess  concerning  myself."  We  had  had 
the  uncomfortable  feeling  that,  as  he  had  himself  thus  pro- 
claimed his  want  of  acquaintance  with  the  topics  in  question, 
it  perhaps  was  hardly  proper  to  prove  this  to  be  not  merely 
a  seemingly  modest  disclaimer.  But  when  his  statement 
reached  us,  that  he  could  not  "palliate  his  'lese-majeste' 
against  our  queen-science,  geology,  by  the  plea  of  igno- 
rance/' that  he  had  "read  so  many  treatises  of  the  leading 
authors  of  the  different  schools,  examined  so  many  points, 
pondered  the  showing  of  their  exponents  so  carefully  for 
at  least  twenty-five  years" — when  this  reached  us,  we  were 
comforted.  We  felt  there  could  be  no  ruthlessness  in  our 
proving  the  confessed  want  of  familiarity  to  be  real ;  but  that 
with  this  vast  amount  of  reading,  and  twenty-five  years  of 
careful  study,  Dr.  Dabney  must  be  abundantly  able  to  take 
care  of  himself  on  the  geological  field.  We  were  conscious 
of  our  own  inability  to  profess  anything  like  the  same 
length  of  time  devoted  to  careful  examination  of  the  topics 
in  question. 

As  to  the  writer's  remark,  that  if  he  has  not  "the  plain 
data  before  his  mind,"  "their  advocates,"  that  is,  geologists, 
"are  most  incompetent  in  stating  them  as  they  wish  them 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


479 


to  be  apprehended;  or  that  he  is  of  defective  intellect;" — 
we  have  to  say  we  have  not  observed  this  incompetence  on 
the  part  of  geologists  generally ;  students  of  geology  usually 
have  no  difficulty  in  apprehending  the  exact  meaning  of  the 
statements  made  by  geological  writers.  But,  if  it  were  ger- 
mane to  the  discussion,  we  would  strenuously  resist  the 
conclusion  to  which  he  would  drive  us  as  the  only  possible 
one  remaining,  namely,  that  he  is  of  "defective  intellect." 
This,  we  insist,  is  not  a  necessary  inference.  As  some  of 
the  readers  of  these  articles  may  have  experienced  the  same 
difficulty,  we  ought  perhaps  to  point  out  two  possible  expla- 
nations.  One  is  suggested  by  the  doggerel  lines, 

"He  that's  convinced  against  his  will 
Is  of  the  same  opinion  still." 

The  other  is  that  perhaps  the  respected  writer  has  con- 
fined his  study  of  geology  to  the  reading  of  books.  Now,  it 
can  never  be  learned  in  that  way.  Without  some  personal 
observation  of  the  phenomena  of  physical  science,  the  rea- 
sonings respecting  such  phenomena  cannot  be  appreciated. 
The  blind  man,  though  of  the  highest  intellectual  capacity, 
can  never  understand  the  science  of  light,  or  the  deaf  man 
the  science  of  sound ;  though  the  former  may  hear  and 
the  latter  read  masterly  treatises  on  optics  and  acoustics 
for  a  quarter  of  a  century.  It  was  the  hope  that  this  diffi- 
culty might  be  removed,  if  it  exists,  which  led  us  to  express 
the  wish  that  we  might  last  summer  have  the  pleasure  of 
Dr.  Dabney's  company  in  some  of  our  walks,  that  we  might 
together  examine  some  of  the  facts  in  the  case — as,  for 
example,  the  mighty  series  of  fossil-bearing  beds  around 
Saarbriick  in  the  western  part  of  Germany.  As  we  were 
disappointed  then,  we  now  take  the  liberty  of  suggesting 
that  a  good  beginning  may  be  conveniently  made  in  the 
study  of  some  interesting  dark  shales  within  less  than  half 
an  hour's  walk  from  Union  Seminary,  which  we  examined 
more  than  twenty  years  ago  with  much  satisfaction.  We 
are  confident  that  after  a  careful  study  of  these  and  similar 
facts,  he  will  cordially  agree  with  us  in  maintaining  that  the 
"only  point"  he  says  he  cares  for,  cannot  have  the  slightest 
application  to  the  greater  part  of  geological  phenomena; 


480 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


and  further,  that  he  will  forever  repudiate  all  thought  of 
restricting  to  the  period  of  "actual  human  history"  the  appli- 
cation of  the  principle  that  "like  effects  are  produced  by  like 
causes." 

Dr.  Dabney  thus  states  in  his  letter  the  only  point  which 
he  thinks  it  worth  while  to  discuss : 

"I  conceive  that  there  is  but  one  single  point  between  you 
and  me,  which  is  either  worthy  or  capable  of  being  made  a 
subject  of  scientific  discussion.  It  is  this :  I  hold  that  to 
those  who  honestly  admit  a  Creator  anywhere  in  the  past,  the 
a  posteriori  argument  of  naturalists  of  properties  to  a  natural 
(as  opposed  to  a  creative  or  supernatural)  origin  of  the  struc- 
tures examined,  can  no  longer  be  universally  valid.  That 
is,  really,  the  only  point  I  care  for."    P.  546. 

"The  proposition  cannot  hold  universally  true  that  an  analo- 
gous naturalness  of  properties  in  a  structure  proves  an 
analogous  natural  origin."   P.  547. 

He  errs  when  he  says  that  this  point  is  "between"  us; 
there  is  no  dispute  between  us  with  reference  to  it.  This  is 
clear  from  what  we  said  on  page  359 : 

"Of  course  every  believer  in  a  personal  God  believes  that 
he  can  produce  in  an  extraordinary  way  just  such  effects  as 
he  ordinarily  produces  by  the  usual  laws  by  which  he  gov- 
erns his  material  universe — the  laws  of  nature ;  and  every 
believer  of  the  Eible  believes  that  he  has  often  done  so." 
Southern  Presbyterian  Review,  p.  359. 

We  illustrated  this  principle  by  reference  to  the  miracles 
recorded  in  the  Scriptures,  which  we  believe  as  firmly  as  we 
believe  any  observed  facts  in  nature ;  and  we  proceeded  to 
show  the  bearing  it  should  have  upon  scientific  reasoning. 
We  then  demonstrated  that  the  test  by  which  Dr.  Dabney 
would  determine  when  such  reasoning  is  valid — namely, 
that  we  must  be  able  to  prove  the  "absence  of  the  supernatu- 
ral"— is  utterly  erroneous ;  and  that  the  true  principle  is  that 
we  are  "required  by  the  very  constitution  of  mind  which 
God  has  given  us,  to  believe  that  every  effect  we  see  has 
been  produced  by  God's  ordinary  laws,  until  we  have  valid 
testimony  to  the  contrary."    P.  336. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


481 


Here,  then,  is  where  we  agree  and  where  we  differ :  We 
agree  in  believing  that  which  above  is  called  "the  only  point 
cared  for"  ;  we  differ  as  to  its  application — Dr.  Dabney  insist- 
ing that  the  "absence  of  the  supernatural"  (Sermon,  p.  13; 
Lectures,  p.  177,)  must  be  proved  before  the  law  of  uni- 
formity may  be  applied;  we  insisting  that  the  presence  of 
the  supernatural  must  be  proved  before  we  are  debarred 
from  applying  it.  We  maintain  that  the  former  principle 
leads  inevitably  to  universal  skepticism,  and  that  the  latter 
leads  inevitably  to  the  knowledge  of  truth. 

This  difference  is  so  fundamental  that  it  may  be  proper 
to  consider  it  more  fully ;  since  it  involves  the  very  possi- 
bility of  natural  science,  and  indeed  of  almost  every  kind  of 
knowledge.  It  is  true  that  Dr.  Dabney  denies  this;  for  he 
says,  "Within  the  domain  of  time,  the  known  past  of  human 
history,  where  its  testimony  proves  the  absence  of  the  super- 
natural, the  analogical  induction  is  perfectly  valid.  And 
there  is  the  proper  domain  of  natural  science.''  (Lectures,  p. 
177.)  But  its  foundation  principles  recognise  no  such  limi- 
tations ;  they  do  not  depend  on  human  history ;  they  do  not 
stand  doubting  until  the  impossible  feat  of  proving  the 
absence  of  the  supernatural  shall  have  been  performed. 
These  principles  involve  the  belief  that  the  laws  of  God 
are  like  their  Author,  who  changes  not;  that  the  manifesta- 
tions of  his  will  are  like  the  Father  of  lights  himself,  with 
wThom  there  is  no  variableness,  neither  shadow  of  turning. 
Those  who  receive  them  have  gone  forward  boldly,  fear- 
lessly yet  cautiously,  wherever  they  have  led ;  and  the  result 
is  the  grand  body  of  natural  science  which  is  the  glory  of  the 
present  age.  These  principles  are  in  no  way  responsible  for 
the  wild,  rash  speculations  as  to  beginnings  in  which  many, 
both  physicists  and  metaphysicians,  have  vainly  indulged; 
for  it  is  only  by  abandoning  the  safe  ground  which  they 
afford  that  the  question  of  origins,  of  an  can  be  dis- 

cussed. The  true  student  of  natural  science  utterly  repu- 
diates the  idea  that  such  speculations  belong  to  his  domain, 
or  that  his  science  can  be  held  responsible  for  them.  Natural 
science  humbly  confesses  that  it  cannot  find  out  God,  cannot 
find  out  the  Almighty  unto  perfection ;  it  does  not  claim  to 


31— w 


482 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


know  who  hath  laid  the  measures  of  the  earth,  or  the  corner- 
stone thereof;  or  who  hath  given  understanding  to  the 
heart — such  knowledge  is  too  wonderful  for  it.  But  our 
Father  in  heaven  has  graciously  communicated  to  us  this 
knowledge  in  his  holy  word.  And  now,  thus  taught,  the 
believing  student  lovingly  traces  his  Father's  handiwork  in 
every  fact  and  every  law  made  known  to  him  by  his  science. 

Let  us  test  the  "only  point,"  on  which  so  much  stress  is 
laid,  by  observing  the  results  to  which  it  leads,  when  taken 
in  connexion  with  the  other  equally  insisted  on,  that  "ana- 
logical induction  is  perfectly  valid"  only  where  the  "absence 
of  the  supernatural"  can  be  proved.  We  examine  the  par- 
tially exhumed  cities  of  Pompeii  and  Herculaneum ;  we 
observe  certain  structures  that  seem  to  be  houses  built  by 
human  hands  for  human  habitation ;  lines  of  stones  with 
grooves  in  them  that  seem  to  be  paved  streets  with  ruts 
worn  by  carriage  wheels;  shapes  which  seem  to  be  human 
skeletons.  From  this  "naturalness  of  properties"  we  infer 
"naturalness  of  origin ;"  we  say  we  believe — we  know — that 
these  are  houses  built  by  human  hands ;  that  these  are  paved 
streets  and  that  the  grooves  are  ruts  worn  by  carriage 
wheels ;  that  these  shapes  were  once  parts  of  living  men. 
We  no  more  doubt  all  this  than  if  we  had  seen  the  builders 
at  work  or  had  ourselves  driven  the  carriages  that  made  the 
ruts.  Yet  at  the  same  time  we  "honestly  admit  a  Creator 
anywhere  in  the  past";  and  we  further  admit  his  power  to 
create  Pompeii.  Now,  as  we  wander  through  the  deserted 
streets,  Dr.  Dabney  meets  us,  and  gravely  bids  us  exercise 
more  "modesty  in  constructing  hypotheses" ;  telling  us  that 
our  "a  posteriori  argument  can  no  longer  be  universally 
valid;"  and  that  we  may  not  rely  with  absolute  confidence 
upon  it  until  we  have  "proved  that  no  other  cause  capable 
of  producing  B"  [Pompeii,  etc.,]  "was  present  in  any  case, 
save  A"  [man].  "Now,  no  man  who  is  unwilling  to  take 
the  blank  atheistic  ground,  can  deny  that  in  the  cases  in 
hand,  another  adequate  cause  may  have  been  present,  as 
soon  as  we  go  back  prior  to  historical  testimony,  namely, 
almighty,  creative  power."    (Lectures,  p.  175.) 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


483 


But  perhaps  he  may  allow  us  to  feel  certain  in  this  case, 
because  we  have  "historical  testimony"  that  these  cities 
were  built  and  inhabited  by  man.  To  this  we  would  reply 
by  asking  whether  our  belief  is  in  the  slightest  degree 
affected  by  that  fact.  Let  the  reader  ask  himself  whether  he 
believes  any  more  firmly  that  the  Pompeian  houses  were 
built  by  man  because  we  have  historical  testimony  to  the 
existence  of  that  city.  He  perceives  that  this  testimony 
does  not  in  the  very  least  strengthen  his  previous  belief,  or 
his  knowledge  rather. 

Should  doubt  still  rest  on  any  mind,  however,  we  may 
take  as  test  examples  the  ruined  cities  of  Central  America, 
or  the  lake  dwellings  in  Switzerland  and  elsewhere,  con- 
cerning which  we  have  no  historical  testimony.  Every  one 
perceives  that  his  conclusions  can  no  more  be  doubted  in 
these  cases  than  in  those  of  which  we  have  history  written 
with  human  pen.  We  know  how  the  foundations  of  the 
Swiss  houses  were  constructed,  what  domestic  animals 
lived  with  their  human  inhabitants,  what  weapons  and 
household  utensils  they  used,  as  certainly  as  if  we  had  lived 
amongst  them — Dr.  Dabney's  principle  to  the  contrary  not- 
withstanding. 

But  it  still  may  be  urged  that  we  have  not  touched  the 
point — that  it  is  natural  properties  and  natural  structures 
which  are  under  discussion,  and  not  the  productions  or 
men.  We  reply  that  the  principles  and  mode  of  reasoning 
are  precisely  the  same,  and  the  certainty  of  our  conclusions 
is  precisely  as  strong,  whether  we  are  examining  a  man's 
house  or  a  beaver's  house ;  whether  at  Pompeii  we  are  exam- 
ining charred  books  or  a  human  skull  or  a  lamp,  or  a  dog's 
skeleton  or  the  products  of  the  neighboring  sea ;  whether  in 
the  Swiss  lakes  we  are  examining  the  cloth  made  by  the 
lake-dwellers,  or  the  wood  forming  the  piles  on  which  their 
houses  were  built,  or  the  shells  of  the  shell-fish  which  lived 
in  the  waters  around  them.  Any  one  who  will  bring  the 
phenomena  before  his  mind  will  perceive  that  he  reasons 
about  all  in  the  same  way,  and  that  he  receives  the  carefully- 
reached  result  with  unwavering  confidence.  He  will  not  and 
cannot  yield  himself  to  the  hopeless  skepticism  which  must 


484 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


flow  from  his  waiting  to  prove  the  absence  of  the  super- 
natural— which  skepticism  would  be  exercised  equally  in  the 
case  of  the  houses,  charred  manuscripts,  and  woven  cloth, 
and  of  the  bones  and  skulls  of  the  lower  animals. 

It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  the  principle  which  leads  to 
despairing  doubt  has  no  application  in  such  cases  as  we  have 
now  considered.  It  is  equally  inapplicable  in  the  study  of 
"musty"  fossils  in  "rotten"  strata.  In  his  private  letter, 
Dr.  Dabney  repels  with  what  we  admire  as  just  indignation 
the  belief  that  the  "older  fossil  remains  of  animal  life  never 
were  alive."  As  to  this  horrible  thought,  he  says  with 
proper  emphasis,  he  "does  not  believe  it."  Now,  the  geolo- 
gist reasons  in  exactly  the  same  way  respecting  these  fossil 
remains  that  the  archaeologist  does  respecting  the  fossil 
cities  of  which  we  have  spoken,  and  his  conclusions  are  not 
more  doubtful,  and  cannot  be  so  regarded  by  any  who  are 
acquainted  with  the  facts  on  which  they  are  based.  Besides 
the  undoubted  truths  thus  reached,  there  are  many  problems 
left  unsolved ;  but  this  admission  no  more  affects  the  truths 
established  by  geology  or  archaeology,  than  the  same  admis- 
sion respecting  mathematics  or  theology,  which  must  be 
made  by  every  fair  mind,  affects  the  truth  taught  by  those 
sciences. 

Among  the  geological  truths  established  beyond  doubt  is 
one  which  gives  Dr.  Dabney  much  concern,  and  leads  him 
often  to  apply  his  favorite  epithet  "atheistic"  to  this  class  of 
students  of  God's  works — we  mean  that  this  world  is  more 
than  a  week  older  than  Adam.  Instead  of  admitting  that 
some  of  the  "rotten  fossils"  are  very  ancient,  he  speaks  of 
the  "unbelieving  geologist  thrusting  at  him  his  difficulty 
about  the  seemingly  ancient  fossils."  P.  585.  He  says — not 
that  he  does  believe,  but — that  he  could  believe,  that  "it 
might  be,  for  instance,  that  this  Omnipotent  and  Infinite 
Wisdom,  working  during  the  six  days,  and  during  the  long 
antediluvian  years,  during  the  flood,  and  during  the  years 
succeeding,  in  times  and  places  where  there  was  no  human 
witness,  saw  fit  to  construct  these  strata,  and  to  sow  them 
with  vegetable  and  animal  life  with  a  prodigal  profusion 
now  unknown ;  and  to  hurry  the  maturing  of  the  strata,  and 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


485 


the  early  death  and  entombment  of  these  thronging  crea- 
tures, with  a  speed  very  different  from  the  speculations  of 
geology;  and  all  for  profound  motives  good  to  his  infinite 
Avisdom,  but  beyond  my  weak  surmises."  P.  585.  Now  to 
any  one  who  has  studied  the  mighty  succession  of  events 
recorded  by  God's  hand  in  the  fossil-bearing  strata,  it  would 
sound  just  as  reasonable  to  say,  when  speaking  of  Pompeii, 
that  "it  might  be  that  this  Omnipotent  and  Infinite  Wisdom, 
working  during  fifteen  minutes  before  noon,  and  during  the 
long  sultry  hours  of  a  summer  afternoon,  and  during  the 
twilight,  and  during  the  few  minutes  succeeding,  through 
human  instrumentality,  saw  fit  to  construct  these  cities,  and 
to  fill  them  with  inhabitants  with  a  prodigal  profusion  now 
unknown ;  and  to  hurry  the  completion  of  the  houses  and  the 
wearing  of  ruts  in  the  paved  streets,  and  the  early  death 
and  entombment  of  the  thronging  population,  with  a  speed 
very  different  from  the  speculations  of  archaeology;  and  all 
for  profound  motives  good  to  his  infinite  wisdom,  but 
beyond  my  weak  surmises."  This  is  no  exaggerated  com- 
parison. It  would  require  the  same  credulity,  both  as  to 
amount  and  kind,  to  believe  that  the  fossil-bearing  strata 
have  been  formed  since  a  week  before  Adam,  as  to  believe 
that  the  history  of  Pompeii  may  have  been  compressed  into 
a  single  afternoon. 

Only  a  few  words  more  are  needed  to  set  before  the  reader 
the  real  value  of  this  "only  point"  in  its  application  to 
natural  science.  The  amount  of  doubt  thrown  on  scientific 
deductions  by  the  admission  that  the  reasoning  in  question 
is  not  universally  valid,  may  be  seen  from  the  following 
parallel  cases.  It  is  equally  true  that  our  inferences  from 
our  mental  impressions  as  to  external  existence  and  external 
changes  are  not  universally  valid.  For  we  see,  we  hear,  we 
taste,  in  our  dreams,  when  no  external  objects  are  present  to 
be  seen,  heard,  or  tasted,  though  we  believe  them  to  be 
present.  What  then  ?  Does  this  fact  throw  a  pall  of  doubt 
over  all  our  knowledge  obtained  through  the  senses  ?  Do  we 
wait  until  it  is  proved  that  we  are  not  dreaming,  or  that 
our  senses  are  not  otherwise  deceiving  us?  No;  we  believe 
in  the  knowledge  obtained  through  these  mental  impres- 


486 


DR.  JAMES  W00DR0W. 


sions  not  the  less  firmly  because  we  know  that  they  are  not 
to  be  universally  trusted.  So  in  mathematics,  which  is  gen- 
erally regarded  as  the  most  certain  of  all  sciences,  it  can 
easily  be  proved  that  no  confidence  is  to  be  placed  in  its 
processes  and  results,  provided  it  is  enough  to  effect  this 
object  to  prove  the  absence  of  universal  validity.  Let 
a2 — b2  be  divided  by  a — b ;  the  result  is  a-\-b.  Now  let  a  and 
b  each  be  equal  to  10;  then  we  have  100  less  100,  or  o, 
divided  by  10  less  10,  or  o;  which  is  of  course  equal  to  o. 
But  we  had  previously  found  that  the  result  is  a-\-b,  or 
io+io,  or  20.  That  is,  o  is  equal  to  20,  according  to  math- 
ematics !  Surely  whatever  leads  to  such  an  apparent 
absurdity  must  seem  to  some  minds  utterly  unworthy  of 
confidence.  Away  with  mathematics  then !  Does  any  one 
reason  thus?  If  not,  let  us  not  reason  thus  as  to  the  funda- 
mental principle  in  natural  science.  Let  us  not  be  induced 
by  Dr.  Dabney's  "only  point"  to  shut  in  our  own  faces  the 
gate  which  leads  to  knowledge  of  God's  works.  This  "only 
point"  on  which  he  lays  so  much  stress  is  of  no  consequence 
in  natural  science.  If  scientific,  reasoning  were  restrained  by 
such  a  mere  puzzle,  the  result  would  be  universal  skepti- 
cism ;  just  as  the  mathematical  example  given  above  would 
lead  us  to  doubt  whether  two  and  two  are  four;  and  the 
psychological  puzzle  would  make  us  doubt  whether  we  ever 
see  or  hear  anything.  Therefore,  if  this  was  all  that  Dr. 
Dabney  cared  for,  it  was  not  worth  his  while  to  spend  so 
much  time  upon  it,  or  to  publish  so  many  treatises  attempt- 
ing to  explain  and  defend  it.  The  game  was  not  worth  the 
candle.  The  principle  is  true;  but  it  has  no  proper  appli- 
cation in  scientific  reasoning;  and  if  improperly  applied,  so 
as  to  exclude  all  reasoning  except  in  the  impossible  case 
where  the  "absence  of  the  supernatural"  is  proved  by  "his- 
torical testimony,"  it  must  lead  to  universal  despairing 
doubt. 

There  is,  then,  no  reason  why  we  should  be  disturbed  in 
our  examination  of  God's  material  universe  by  the  "only 
point  cared  for."  As  we  said  before,  the  point  is  true ;  but  it 
has  no  application  in  natural  science.  For  we  are  entitled  to 
assume  that  all  natural  structures  have  been  produced  by 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


487 


God's  ordinary  laws  until  the  contrary  is  proved  in  any  par- 
ticular case.  And  the  burden  of  proof  always  rests  on  those 
who  maintain  the  supernatural  origin.  When  such  origin 
has  been  proved  in  any  case,  it  is  thereby  put  beyond  the 
range  of  physical  science.  It  is  no  part  of  the  physicist's 
business  to  explain  miracles :  the  natural  philosopher  cannot 
tell  how  Elisha  made  the  axe  swim ;  the  archaeologist  cannot 
determine  the  character  of  the  writing  on  the  Tables  of  the 
Law ;  the  astronomer  cannot  explain  how  the  sun  and  moon 
stood  still  in  the  valley  of  Ajalon,  or  how  the  shadow  went 
back  ten  degrees  on  Hezekiah's  dial-plate — it  is  folly  to 
make  the  attempt.  All  these  miracles,  like  creation  itself, 
are  outside  and  above  all  natural  science,  which  studies 
God's  ordinary  methods  of  operation  alone.  We  believe, 
without  the  least  doubt,  that  these  miracles  occurred  as 
stated  in  the  Bible.  We  have  the  amplest  testimony  to  the 
truth  of  the  Bible,  and  no  more  doubt  its  statements  than  we 
doubt  the  intuitive  beliefs  which  its  Author  has  implanted 
in  our  minds.  We  do  not  perceive  any  inconsistency  in  this 
position.  We  confess  our  inability  to  understand  why  we 
should  refuse  to  believe  in  miracles — effects  produced  by 
God  outside  of  his  ordinary  laws — because  we  firmly 
believe  in  the  law  of  uniformity  in  all  cases  where  he  has 
given  us  no  reason  to  think  he  is  acting  in  an  extraordinary 
manner;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  can  we  understand  why 
we  should  refuse  to  trust  unwaveringly  in  our  intuitive 
belief  in  the  same  law,  because  we  believe  that  God  can 
work  miracles  and  has  worked  them.  We  believe  both 
equally;  just  as  we  believe  that  God  is  sovereign  and  man 
free.  If  it  is  objected  that  it  is  logically  impossible  to 
believe  both  the  former,  we  reply  we  do  not  find  it  so  any 
more  than  to  believe  both  the  latter.  We  do  believe  all, 
without  hesitation  or  doubt.  We  have  not  yet  reached 
that  stage  of  progress  which  leads  us  to  refuse  to  believe 
everything  we  cannot  understand. 

In  justice  to  Dr.  Dabney,  we  ought  to  state  that  in  one 
passage  of  his  reply  (page  579,  line  23  et  seq.,)  he  correctly 
states  the  true  position  as  to  when  the  argument  from  natu- 
ralness of  qualities  is  not  valid — when  there  has  been  "first 


488 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


proved  the  presence:  of  God's  intervening  power."  And  he 
evidently  thinks  this  is  what  he  has  always  been  maintain- 
ing, instead  of  the  dangerous  error  we  have  been  exposing. 
We  shall  not  further  discuss  this  point;  but  in  order  to 
allow  the  reader  to  judge  for  himself  whether  he  is  right 
as  to  what  his  teaching  has  been,  we  give  a  few  more  quota- 
tions from  his  writings : 

"Hence,  third,  it  follows  that,  if  once  a  creative  act  is 
admitted  to  have  occurred  somewhere  in  the  past,  it  may 
have  occurred  anywhere  in  the  past,  so  far  as  the  deduc- 
tions of  natural  science  from  the  marks  of  natural  law  upon 
its  products  go.  In  other  words,  the  value  of  all  these  ana- 
logical inferences  as  to  the  date  at  which,  and  the  mode  by 
which  these  objects  of  nature  came  into  being,  are  worth- 
less just  so  soon  as  they  atempt  to  pass  back  of  the  earliest 
historical  testimony.  For  the  creative  act,  wherever  it  has 
intervened,  (and  who  can  tell,  when  testimony  fails,  where 
it  may  have  not  intervened?)  has  utterly  superseded  and 
cut  across  all  such  inferences.  Nor  can  these  natural  analo- 
gies prove  that  the  creative  act  has  not  thus  intervened  at  a 
given  place  in  the  past,  because  the  whole  validity  of  the 
analogies  depends  on  the  supposed  absence  of  the  creative 
act.  Hence,  all  the  reasonings  of  geologists  seem  to  us 
utterly  vitiated  in  their  very  source,  when  they  attempt  to 
fix,  from  natural  analogies,  the  age  and  mode  of  produc- 
tion of  the  earth's  structures."  (Southern  Presbyterian  Review, 
vol.  xiv.,  (1861,)  pp.  267,  268.) 

"Wherever  the  inquirer  into  nature  is  certain  that  the 
facts  he  investigates  are  truly  under  the  dominion  of  natural 
law,  so  far  such  reasonings  are  valid.  As  to  the  origin  and 
history  of  nature  in  the  past,  they  are  valid  no  farther  back 
than  we  can  be  assured  of  the  absence  of  the  supernatural ; 
and  we  know  not  how  such  assurance  can  be  gained  by  us, 
save  by  the  testimony  of  human  experience  and  history,  or 
of  inspiration."    (Ibid.,  p.  270.) 

"And  that  is  the  sphere  of  practical  inquiry,  within  the 
historical  past,  the  present,  and  the  finite,  terrestrial  future ; 
where  we  can  ascertain  the  absence  of  the  supernatural." 
(Sermon,  p.  13.) 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


489 


''Unless  you  are  an  atheist,  you  must  admit  that  another 
cause,  creative  power,  may  have  been  present;  and  present  any- 
where prior  to  the  ages  of  authentic  historical  testimony, 
Thus,  the  admission  of  the  theistic  scheme  actually  cuts 
across  and  supersedes  all  these  supposed  natural  arguments 
for  the  origin  and  age  of  these  structures."    (  Lectures,  p.  176.) 

But  it  is  needless  to  multiply  such  quotations. 

Dr.  Dabney  decidedly  objects  to  being  represented  as 
hostile  to  physical  science ;  but  inasmuch  as  that  which 
would  be  left  after  applying  his  limitations  would  be  so 
extremely  diminutive,  it  cannot  be  of  much  importance 
whether  he  is  friendly  or  hostile  to  the  little  remnant  he 
would  recognise  as  true  science.  He  tells  us  plainly  he  is 
"jealous  of  geology,'*'  (p.  548,)  and  seeks  to  manifest  his 
contempt  for  this  sublime  branch  of  knowledge  by  speaking 
of  his  "smaller  admiration  for  the  fascinating  art  of  the 
mineralogist."  (P.  546.)  The  only  explanation  of  this 
jealousy  and  contempt  is  found  in  the  misapprehension  of 
the  real  character  of  geology  betrayed  by  speaking  of  it  as 
the  "art  of  the  mineralogist."  Those  who  know  what  it  is 
say  of  it,  with  Sir  John  Herschel :  "Geology,  in  the  magni- 
tude and  sublimity  of  the  objects  of  which  it  treats, 
undoubtedly  ranks  in  the  scale  of  the  sciences,  next  to 
astronomy."  Or  with  Principal  Dawson :  "The  science  of 
the  earth,  as  illustrated  by  geological  research,  is  one  of  the 
noblest  outgrowths  of  our  modern  intellectual  life.  Consti- 
tuting the  sum  of  all  the  natural  sciences  in  their  application 
to  the  history  of  our  world,  it  affords  a  very  wide  and  varied 
scope  for  mental  activity,  and  deals  with  some  of  the 
grandest  problems  of  space  and  time  and  organic  exist- 
ence." Or  with  Professor  Dana :  "Every  sphere  in  space 
must  have  had  a  related  system  of  growth,  and  all  are,  in 
fact,  individualities  in  this  Kingdom  of  Worlds.  Geology 
treats  of  the  earth  in  this  grand  relation.  It  is  as  much 
removed  from  Mineralogy  as  from  Botany  and  Zoology. 
It- uses  all  these  departments ;  for  the  species  under  them  are 
the  objects  which  make  up  the  earth,  and  enter  into  geologi- 
cal history."  Such  are  the  words  of  these  eminent  men, 
all  of  them  sincere  Christians,  to  whom  the  Sacred  Scrip- 


490  DR.  JAMES  W00DR0W. 

tures  as  the  very  word  of  God  are  as  dear  as  they  are  to 
Dr.  Dabney. 

We  do  not  think  it  needful  to  apologise  for  our  love  of 
geology  and  the  constant  delight  we  find  in  it.  The  learned 
Roman  Catholic  divine,  Professor  Molloy,  exactly  expresses 
our  views  when  he  says :  "Among  the  various  pursuits  that 
engage  the  human  mind  there  are  few  so  attractive  as 
geology,  none  so  important  as  Revelation."  We  do  not  feel 
called  on  to  resist  this  attraction,  or  to  reject  or  look  with 
cold  suspicion  on  the  great  body  of  truth  which  has  been 
gathered  by  the  earnest  labors  of  thousands  of  diligent 
inquirers,  whose  devotion  and  heroism  in  searching  after  it 
is  second  only  to  that  of  the  pioneer  missionaries  of  the 
Cross.  To  attain  it  they  have  spared  no  sacrifices,  they  have 
shunned  no  toil,  they  have  often  braved  death  itself.  We 
are  not  ashamed  to  admit  that  it  is  fascinating  to  us,  not- 
withstanding the  contempt  any  one  may  attempt  to  cast 
upon  it  by  professing  his  "jealousy,"  his  "smaller  admira- 
tion" of  it,  or  by  scornfully  speaking  of  its  study  of  "musty" 
and  "rotten  fossils."  It  is  to  us  inconceivable  how  an  ingen- 
uous mind,  open  to  the  reception  of  all  God's  truth,  should 
be  able  to  spend  long  years  in  studying  it,  without  sharing 
in  the  delight  we  have  experienced.  God  forbid  that  while 
we  gaze  rapturously  upon  the  ineffable  glory  of  the  Most 
High  as  it  shines  in  the  face  of  his  Anointed,  we  should 
shut  our  eyes  to  the  glory — lesser  indeed,  but  glory  still — 
which  is  reflected  from  the  works  of  his  hands. 

In  connexion  with  professions  of  "high  respect  for  all  true 
physical  science,"  Dr.  Dabney  justifies  and  defends  his 
assertions  that  "these  sciences  are  arrayed  in  all  their 
phases  on  the  side  of  skepticism" ;  he  still  insists  that  "these 
statements  are  all  true."  (Page  548.)  His  defence  is  that 
"all  of  them  are  arrayed,  by  some  of  their  professed  teachers, 
on  the  side  of  skepticism" !  In  his  estimation,  this  latter 
expression  is  equivalent  to  his  sweeping  denunciation  of 
geologists  and  the  physical  sciences  contained  in  the  state- 
ments just  quoted!  Does  any  reader  agree  with  him,  or 
think  he  has  succeeded  in  his  defence?  Let  the  assertions 
be  made,  "The  tendencies  of  writers  of  books  are  atheistic" ; 


HIS  TEACHINGS.  491 

"The  art  of  writing  is  arrayed  in  all  its  phases  on  the  side  of 
skepticism."  Would  it  be  a  sufficient  justification  of  these 
assertions  to  say:  "These  statements  are  all  true,  and  con- 
sistent with  our  high  respect  for  all  true  authorship.  The 
art  of  writing  is  arrayed,  by  some  of  its  professed  masters, 
on  the  side  of  skepticism."  Yet  this  would  be  exactly 
parallel  with  Dr.  Dabney's  defence. 

The  use  of  such  misleading  language  by  a  single  writer, 
however  distinguished,  might  do  no  great  amount  of  harm ; 
but  these  terrible  accusations  against  science  are  made  so 
often  from  many  of  our  pulpits  and  in  so  many  religious 
writings,  that  we  should  not  hastily  dismiss  this  point.  It 
is  painfully  common  in  these  quarters  to  hear  such  expres- 
sions as  "infidel  science,"  "scientific  infidels,"  "atheistic 
geology,"  etc.,  where  it  is  clear  that  the  speaker  does  not 
mean  the  infidel  perversion  of  science,  but  science  itself. 
And  even  in  cases  where  one  means  by  "anti-Christian 
science,"  as  Dr.  Dabney  says  he  does,  that  something  "sepa- 
rated from  sound  physical  science"  is  anti-Christian,  such 
careless  and  misleading  language  should  be  avoided  as 
certain  to  do  harm.  We  know  that  these  inaccurate  expres- 
sions— to  use  the  mildest  word — in  the  pulpit  and  in  relig- 
ious writings,  do  much  to  promote  infidelity;  and  therefore 
one  cannot  be  too  guarded  in  always  explaining  exactly 
what  he  means  every  time  he  refers  to  infidelity  and  science 
as  in  any  way  connected. 

Let  the  tables  be  turned,  that  we  may  the  more  easily  see 
how  far  such  language  is  really  justifiable,  remembering 
that  it  is  a  poor  rule  that  will  not  work  both  ways ;  or  rather 
remembering  the  words  of  our  Lord  and  Master :  "All  things 
whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye  even 
so  to  them." 

Let  these  statements,  then,  be  made :  "Christianity  always 
has  some  tendency  to  oppose  and  destroy  the  truth."  "The 
tendencies  of  Christians  are  bloodthirsty  and  murderous." 
"The  spirit  of  Christianity  in  all  its  phases  is  essentially 
promotive  of  lying,  fraud,  and  gross  immorality;"  "it  is 
arrayed  in  all  its  phases  on  the  side  of  ignorance,  supersti- 
tion, folly,  and  vice."    "The  perpetual  animus  of  Christianity, 


492 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


especially  in  our  day,  is  to  insist  on  the  belief  of  puerile 
falsehoods  and  the  rejection  of  all  valuable  truth."  Now, 
would  any  amount  of  explanation  justify  these  horrible 
assertions?  Let  the  reader  judge  whether  they  are  not  true 
in  exactly  the  same  sense  in  which  the  following  assertions 
made  by  Dr.  Dabney  are  true : 

"We  find  that  physical  science  always  has  some  tendency 
to  become  anti-theological."  Sermon,  p.  2.  "The  tendencies 
of  geologists  are  atheistic."  So.  Pres.  Review,  vol.  xxiv.,  p. 
549;  Lectures,  p.  178.  "The  spirit  of  these  sciences  is  essen- 
tially infidel  and  rationalistic ;  they  are  arrayed,  in  all  their 
phases,  on  the  side  of  skepticism."  Memoir  in  Central  Pres- 
byterian, October  31,  1866 ;  reaffirmed,  So.  Pres.  Review,  pp. 
548,  549.  "This  is  the  eternity  of  Naturalism — it  is  Atheism. 
And  such  is  the  perpetual  animus  of  material  science,  espe- 
cially in  our  day."    Lectures,  p.  179. 

In  justification  of  the  above  assertions  respecting  Chris- 
tianity, it  would  be  of  no  avail  to  recount  the  efforts  made 
by  multitudes  of  Christians  during  eighteen  centuries  to 
destroy  the  truth;  or  to  portray  the  horrors  of  the  Inquisi- 
tion, or  the  slaughter  of  the  "saints  whose  bones  lie  scat- 
tered on  the  Alpine  mountains  cold,"  or  the  bloody  persecu- 
tions in  Holland  or  in  Scotland,  or  any  or  all  of  the  murder- 
ous tragedies  enacted  by  the  Romish  and  other  Christian 
Churches ;  or  to  narrate  the  history  of  Ignatius  Loyola  and 
his  followers  who  profess  to  be  the  servants  of  Jesus  beyond 
all  other  men ;  or  to  point  to  monkery  as  it  has  existed 
almost  from  the  times  of  the  apostles ;  or  to  hold  up  to  view 
that  Church  which  contains  the  major  part  of  all  who  are 
called  Christians,  with  its  determined  resistance  to  the 
entrance  of  light,  and  its  new  dogma  of  Infallibility.  All 
this  would  be  of  no  avail  in  justifying  or  even  palliating  the 
enormity  of  these  expressions.  No  more  can  all  his  apolo- 
gies serve  to  justify  or  palliate  Dr.  Dabney's  sweeping 
assertions  respecting  that  grand  body  of  truth,  which  is  only 
second,  though  separated  by  a  long  interval,  to  the  body  of 
inestimably  more  precious  truth  graciously  bestowed  upon 
us  in  the  Bible.  We  know — we  do  not  merely  suppose,  but 
we  know — that  multitudes  of  upright  men,  sincere  lovers  of 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


493 


the  truth,  are  driven  from  our  sanctuaries,  and  kept  from 
ever  returning — alas,  to  their  own  undoing — by  just  such 
sweeping  denunciations  of  science.  We  beg,  we  implore, 
any  minister  of  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation  who  may  read 
what  we  are  now  writing,  never  again  to  mingle  these  cruel 
and  baseless  attacks  with  the  blessed  offer  of  life,  and 
thereby  drive  to  ruin  those  whom  he  might  otherwise  save. 
Preach  the  word;  and  do  not  make  it  of  none  effect  by 
joining  with  it  anathemas  of  that  which  your  most  enlight- 
ened hearers  know  to  be  true.* 

*The  following  points  cannot  be  passed  by  without  notice,  and  yet  they 
do  not  directly  affect  the  general  discussion;  therefore  it  seems  best  to 
dispose  of  them  in  a  note. 

We  regret  that  Dr.  Dabney  has  neither  substantiated  nor  withdrawn 
the  charge  which  he  introduced  into  his  Sermon  against  the  "great 
majority  of  members  from  the  Northern  States"  who  were  present  at 
the  Scientific  Association  at  Indianapolis.  The  charge  was  that,  although 
many  of  them  were  ministers  and  elders,  yet  they  confessed  that  they 
were  hypocrites  and  liars — that  they  "professed  a  religion  which  they 
did  not  believe."  Sermon,  p.  6.  Instead  of  either  withdrawing  or 
proving  it,  as  we  had  hoped  he  would  do,  he  tells  us  "he  finds  his  con- 
science very  obtuse  on  this  point,"  and  calls  our  remarks  "an  attempt 
to  veil  the  prevalence  of  unbelief  in  America" !  P.  552.  He  did  not 
inquire  into  the  truth  of  the  statement;  he  says  he  found  it  going  the 
rounds  of  the  newspapers,  and  therefore  was  entitled  to  use  it,  because  it 
had  already  been  given  "to  the  public"!  We  shall  not  discuss  the 
propriety  of  such  a  course;  but  merely  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
when  in  a  sermon  Dr.  Dabney  states  a  proposition  and  introduces  evidence 
to  support  it  with  the  preface,  "We  have  the  explicit  testimony  of  an 
eye-witness,"  the  evidence  he  thus  introduces  may  be  nothing  more  than 
a  wandering  newspaper  slander,  which  the  slightest  examination  would 
show  could  not  possibly  be  true,  picked  up  from  the  columns  of  the 
"mighty  Northern  press."  P.  552.  We  trust  that  this  practice  may  not 
become  common  amongst  our  ministers;  we  trust  that  they  will  not  think 
themselves  justified  in  quoting,  as  conclusive  in  an  argument  in  defence 
of  Scripture  truth,  a  slander  culled  from  the  New  York  Herald  or  other 
representative  of  this  "mighty  Northern  press." 

We  are  sorry  we  cannot  pass  by  wholly  without  criticism  the  remarks 
on  pages  569-571,  in  connexion  with  the  reference  to  the  union  between 
the  Old  School  General  Assembly  and  the  United  Synod.  We  certainly 
shall  not  discuss  that  union.  We  loyally  accepted  the  decision  of  the 
General  Assembly  of  1864;  and  nothing  from  our  lips  or  pen  has  done 
aught  to  weaken  it.  But  we  must  say  a  few  words  as  to  the  intimation 
that  we  have  wished  to  cast  doubt  upon  Dr.  Dabney's  theological  sound- 
ness. For  this  intimation  there  is  not  the  slightest  foundation.  So  far 
as  we  are  acquainted  with  his  theological  views,  we  agree  with  him;  and 
we  only  wish  he  could  equally  agree  with  us  in  our  scientific  views,  and 
help  us  to  stem  the  tide  of  error  instead  of  himself  swelling  it.  Of  the 
discussion  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  between  the  lamented  Dr.  A.  A. 
Porter  and  himself,  to  which  he  refers,  we  read  scarcely  anything  on 
either  side;  and  this  attempt  to  connect  us  with  it  should  not  have  been 
made.  Dr.  Dabney  further  says  that  we  would  be  understood  as  "insinu- 
ating" that  "the  leading  Presbyterian  theologian,  'personally  known  to 


494 


DR.  JAMDS  WOODROW. 


The  next  point  is  one  which  we  had  not  supposed  it  would 
be  necessary  to  discuss  further ;  for  we  thought  Dr.  Dabney 
would  at  once  accept  our  views.  In  his  Lectures,  Sermon, 
etc.,  he  seeks  to  cast  doubt  on  physical  science  by  speaking 
of  it  as  "human  and  uninspired,"  contrasting  it  with  theol- 
ogy as  the  "divine  science."  We  showed  that  the  writer  in 
such  cases  confounds  things  which  are  different.   We  said : 

"It  is  to  be  observed  that  theology  is  as  much  a  human 
science  as  geology  or  any  other  branch  of  natural  science. 
The  facts  which  form  the  basis  of  the  science  of  theology 
are  found  in  God's  word ;  those  which  form  the  basis  of  the 
science  of  geology  are  found  in  his  works;  but  the  science 
in  both  cases  is  the  work  of  the  human  mind.  The  Bible 
was  indeed  given  specifically  for  the  instruction  of  man, 
while  the  material  universe  was  not  so  directly  created  for 
this  purpose;  and  the  lessons  taught  in  the  Bible  are  of 
infinitely  higher  value  than  those  which  we  learn  from 
nature;  but  still  the  science  of  theology  as  a  science  is 

Dr.  Dabney,*  was  no  other  than  Dr.  Dabney  himself."  As  to  this,  we 
say,  first,  the  author  should  not  have  spoken  of  us  as  "insinuating"  any- 
thing. Even  if  he  had  not  been  prevented  by  the  general  laws  of 
propriety,  he  must  have  known  that  we  express  plainly  whatever  meaning 
we  wish  to  convey — we  never  "insinuate."  For  example,  when  it  was 
necessary  to  point  out  his  want  of  acquaintance  with  certain  branches  of 
science,  we  did  it  so  clearly  that  we  could  not  be  misunderstood — we  did 
not  "insinuate"  it.  Of  his  statement  that  we  would  be  understood  not 
only  as  insinuating,  but  "insinuating"  what  we  knew  to  be  false — namely, 
that  he  was  the  author  of  the  quotation  we  made — we  have  nothing  to 
say  except  that  we  think  too  highly  of  him  to  believe  that  he  will  not 
reproach  himself  far  more  bitterly  than  we  could  wish  him  to  do,  when 
he  properly  reflects  on  this  intimation.  But,  in  the  next  place,  we  cannot 
comprehend  how  any  one  could  so  misunderstand  us.  Here  is  Dr. 
Dabney's  language: 

"And  the  clerical  readers  of  the  Review  have  doubtless,  almost  as 
naturally,  understood  him  as  insinuating  that  'the  leading  Presbyterian 
theologian,  personally  known  to  Dr.  Dabney,'  was  no  other  than  Dr. 
Dabney  himself.  If  the  words  bear  this  construction,  all  I  have  to  say 
is,  that  I  never  wrote  or  uttered  the  statements  enclosed  in  the  quotation 
marks."    P.  570. 

Our  difficulty  is  increased  by  the  fact  that  Dr.  Dabney  immediately 
afterwards,  on  the  same  page,  shows  that  he  knew  whom  we  meant,  by 
saying  that  the  words  we  quoted  were  the  Rev.  Dr.  A.  H.  H.  Boyd's. 
We  described  the  author  of  these  words  by  three  marks:  1.  That  he  had 
used  the  words  we  quoted.  2.  That  he  was  personally  known  to  Dr. 
Dabney,  and  therefore  not  Dr.  Dabney  himself,  unless  we  intended  to 
deceive,  3.  That  he  was  included  among  "leading  theologians."  Now, 
although  the  writer  knew  that  the  first  mark  did  not  apply  to  him,  and 
that  the  second  should  not,  it  seems  he  regards  the  third  as  so  exclusively 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


495 


equally  human  and  uninspired  with  the  science  of  geology — 
the  facts  in  both  cases  are  divine,  the  sciences  based  upon 
them  human."   P.  331. 

We  further  showed  that  we  gain  a  knowledge  of  theology 
just  as  we  do  of  physical  science — by  the  use  of  our  natural 
reason.  We  are  disappointed  to  find  that  Dr.  Dabney  has 
not  accepted  these  distinctions.  Instead  of  doing  so.  he 
says : 

"But  from  Dr.  Woodrow's  next  step  I  must  solemnly 
dissent.  It  is  that  in  which  he  degrades  our  knowledge  of 
God  and  redemption  through  revelation  to  the  level  of  our 
fallible,  human  knowledge  of  the  inexact  physical  sciences. 
.  .  .  The  grave  error  of  this  is  unmasked  by  a  single  ques- 
tion :  Is  then  the  work  of  the  geologist,  in  constructing 
hypotheses,  inductions,  inferences,  merely  hermeneutical  ? 
All  that  the  student  of  the  divine  science  properly  does,  is  to 
interpret  God's  words,  and  compare  and  arrange  his  teach- 
ings. Is  this  all  that  geology  undertakes?  .  .  .  The  'facts 
of  geologyr'  are  simply  phenomenal,  material  substances. 

applicable  that  the  "clerical  readers  of  the  Review  have  doubtless  almost 
as  naturally  understood  us  to  mean  himself  "  !  Now,  we  do  not  think  the 
clerical  or  other  readers  would  misunderstand  us  as  the  writer  has  done — 
that  because  we  said  "leading  Presbyterian  theologians,"  we  could  mean 
no  other  than  Dr.  Dabney.  Dr.  Dabney  is  certainly  a  leading  theologian; 
but  we  did  not  say  "the  leading  theologian,"  as  he  quotes  us,  in  applying 
it  to  himself;  we  said  "leading  theologians" — and  surely  there  are  several 
others  to  whom  this  description  applies. 

We  employed  the  illustration  with  no  such  motives  as  are  ascribed  to 
us.  We  were  illustrating  (page  335)  the  statement  that  physical  science 
ought  not  to  be  held  responsible  for  everything  done  by  its  students,  just 
as  Presbyterianism  cannot  be  held  responsible  for  everything  done  by 
Presbyterian  theologians.  Writing  in  this  journal,  we  drew  our  illustra- 
tion from  its  pages,  as  likely  to  be  most  familiar  to  its  readers;  for  most 
of  its  present  readers  were  its  readers  in  1S64.  We  therefore  quoted 
from  Volume  XIV.,  pp.  30;?  and  303,  doctrinal  statements  which  had  two 
years  before  been  published  in  a  Richmond  (Va.)  journal  by  the  distin- 
guished Dr.  Boyd,  which  we  felt  sure  must  be  rejected  by  Dr.  Dabney, 
who  would  utterly  refuse  to  allow  Presbyterianism  to  be  held  responsible 
for  them.  We  were  not  in  quest  of  anything  "far-fetched,"  but  the  most 
familiar  possible  illustration  of  the  following  argument:  If  Dr.  Dabney 
and  all  right-thinking  men  refuse  to  hold  Presbyterianism  responsible  for 
all  the  teachings  of  so  distinguished  and  justly  esteemed  a  Presbyterian 
theologian  as  Dr.  Boyd,  then  Dr.  Dabney  and  all  right-thinking  men 
ought  to  abstain  from  holding  physical  science  responsible  for  all  the 
teachings  of  distinguished  scientific  men  like  Tyndall,  La  Place,  etc. 
This  illustration  was  surely  neither  "far-fetched,"  "peculiar,"  nor 
"remote":  if  it  was  "biting,"  as  Dr.  Dabney  says  it  was,  it  was  the 
truth  of  it  alone  that  bit. 


496 


DR.  JAMES  W00DR0W. 


The  facts  of  theology,  which  Dr.  Woodrow  admits  to  be 
divine,  are  didactic  propositions,  introducing  us  into  the  very 
heart  of  divine  verities.  .  .  .  The  critic's  view,  whether  right 
or  wrong,  is  unquestionably  condemned  by  his  Confession  of 
Faith  and  his  Bible.  The  former,  Chap.  I,  §  5,  says:  'Our 
full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  infallible  truth  and 
divine  authority  thereof  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  word  in  our 
hearts/  "    Pp.  556,  557. 

From  these  passages  the  reader  will  perceive  that  certain 
obvious  distinctions  have  been  overlooked  by  the  writer. 
The  first  relates  to  the  nature  of  theology;  the  second,  to 
the  way  we  become  acquainted  with  it.  He  here  as  else- 
where confounds  the  Holy  Bible  and  the  science  of  theology, 
speaking  of  them  as  if  they  were  identical.  He  fails  to  see 
that  the  truths  of  the  Bible  are  not  the  science  of  theology, 
but  merely  the  materials  which  are  used  by  human  unin- 
spired man  to  construct  that  science.  As  we  before  said, 
"the  Bible  was  given  specifically  for  the  instruction  of  man," 
to  teach  "lessons  of  infinitely  higher  value  than  those  which 
we  learn  from  nature;"  and  happily  we  may  profit  by  these 
lessons,  without  knowing  even  the  first  principles  of  the 
human  science  of  theology.  We  do  not  need  the  science 
of  botany  to  enable  us  to  derive  profit  from  the  trees  of 
the  orchard  and  the  forest :  their  fruit  cheers  and  nourishes 
us  ;  their  shade  refreshes  us ;  with  wood  from  their  trunks  we 
build  houses  to  shelter  us,  and  make  fires  to  warm  us  and 
prepare  our  food.  So  we  do  not  need  the  science  of  theol- 
ogy to  enable  us  to  derive  profit  from  that  garden  of  the 
Lord — the  Sacred  Scriptures:  its  leaves  are  for  the  healing 
of  the  nations ;  we  directly  draw  from  it  the  highest  nourish- 
ment for  the  mind  and  the  heart;  we  need  no  analysis  to 
obtain  its  richest  spiritual  food  and  shelter  from  all  that 
can  harm  here  and  hereafter;  it  immediately  makes  known 
to  us  the  love  of  God  the  Father,  the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  renewing  of  God  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  salvation 
from  sin,  and  the  gift  of  eternal  life — all  without  waiting  for 
the  relations  between  these  precious  truths  to  be  pointed  out 
by  the  uninspired  science  of  theology.    But  just  as  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


497 


botanist  constructs  his  science  by  interpreting  relations 
between  the  different  trees  and  their  different  parts,  just  so 
the  theologian  constructs  his  science  by  interpreting  the 
relations  between  the  various  truths  in  the  Bible.  The  trees 
are  divine ;  the  Bible  truths  are  divine ;  but  the  science  of 
botany  is  human,  and  the  science  of  theology  is  human. 
Does  this  "degrade"  theology  or  the  Bible?  It  is  not  said, 
or  remotely  hinted,  that  natural  science  is  not  infinitely 
inferior  in  importance  to  theological  science ;  but  only  that 
in  both  the  facts  are  divine,  the  sciences  human.  Surely  this 
is  too  plain  to  need  further  argument. 

There  is  nothing  new  to  theologians  in  our  views  on  this 
point,  and  we  expected  them  to  be  adopted  as  soon  as 
stated.  Since,  however,  they  are  so  solemnly  dissented  from 
by  a  Professor  of  Theology,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  quote 
at  some  length  the  views  of  that  Nestor  of  American  theolo- 
gians, who  certainly  knows  the  nature  of  the  science  which 
he  has  for  more  than  fifty  years  been  teaching  with  such 
distinguished  ability  and  success : 

"The  Bible  is  no  more  a  system  of  theology  than  nature 
is  a  system  of  chemistry  or  of  mechanics.  We  find  in  nature 
the  facts  which  the  chemist  or  the  mechanical  philosopher 
has  to  examine,  and  from  them  to  ascertain  the  laws  by 
which  they  are  determined.  So  the  Bible  contains  the 
truths  which  the  theologian  has  to  collect,  authenticate, 
arrange,  and  exhibit  in  their  internal  relation  to  each  other." 

"What  is  true  of  other  sciences  is  true  of  theology.  We 
cannot  know  what  God  has  revealed  in  his  word  unless  we 
understand,  at  least  in  some  good  measure,  the  relation 
in  which  the  separate  truths  therein  contained  stand  to  each 
other.  It  cost  the  Church  centuries  of  study  and  contro- 
versy to  solve  the  problem  concerning  the  person  of  Christ ; 
that  is,  to  adjust  and  bring  into  harmonious  arrangement 
all  the  facts  which  the  Bible  teaches  on  that  subject." 

"God  does  not  teach  men  astronomy  or  chemistry,  but  he 
gives  them  the  facts  out  of  which  those  sciences  are  con- 
structed. Neither  does  he  teach  us  systematic  theology, 
but  he  gives  us  in  the  Bible  the  truths  which,  properly 
understood  and  arranged,  constitute  the  science  of  theology. 


32— w 


498 


DR.  JAMKS  WOODROW. 


As  the  facts  of  nature  are  all  related  and  determined  by 
physical  laws,  so  the  facts  of  the  Bible  are  all  related  and 
determined  by  the  nature  of  God  and  of  his  creatures.  And 
as  he  wills  that  men  should  study  his  works  and  discover 
their  wonderful  organic  relation  and  harmonious  combina- 
tion, so  it  is  his  will  that  we  should  study  his  word,  and 
learn  that,  like  the  stars,  its  truths  are  not  isolated  points, 
but  systems,  cycles,  and  epicycles,  in  unending  harmony 
and  grandeur." 

"The  inductive  method  is  so  called  because  it  agrees  in 
everything  essential  with  the  inductive  method  as  applied  to 
the  natural  sciences. 

"First.  The  man  of  science  comes  to  the  study  of  nature 
with  certain  assumptions,  (i)  He  assumes  the  trustworthi- 
ness of  his  sense  perceptions.  Unless  he  can  rely  upon  the 
well-authenticated  testimony  of  his  senses,  he  is  deprived  of 
all  means  of  prosecuting  his  investigations.  The  facts  of 
nature  reveal  themselves  to  our  faculties  of  sense,  and  can 
be  known  in  no  other  way.  (2.)  He  must  also  assume  the 
trustworthiness  of  his  mental  operations.  He  must  take  for 
granted  that  he  can  perceive,  compare,  combine,  remem- 
ber, and  infer;  and  that  he  can  safely  rely  upon  these 
mental  faculties  in  their  legitimate  exercise.  (3)  He  must 
also  rely  on  the  certainty  of  those  truths  which  are  not 
learned  from  experience,  but  which  are  given  in  the  consti- 
tution of  our  nature:  That  every  effect  must  have  a  cause; 
that  the  same  cause  under  like  circumstances,  will  produce 
like  effects ;  that  a  cause  is  not  a  mere  uniform  antecedent, 
but  that  which  contains  within  itself  the  reason  why  the 
effect  occurs. 

"Second.  The  student  of  nature  having  this  ground  on 
which  to  stand,  and  these  tools  wherewith  to  work,  pro- 
ceeds to  perceive,  gather,  and  combine  his  facts.  These  he 
does  not  pretend  to  manufacture,  nor  presume  to  modify. 
He  must  take  them  as  they  are.  He  is  only  careful  to 
be  sure  that  they  are  real,  and  that  he  has  them  all,  or  at 
least  all  that  are  necessary  to  justify  any  inference  which  he 
may  build  upon  them. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


499 


"Third.  From  facts  thus  ascertained  and  classified,  he 
deduces  the  laws  by  which  they  are  determined.  That  a 
heavy  body  falls  to  the  ground  is  a  familiar  fact." 

"The  Bible  is  to  the  theologian  what  nature  is  to  the 
man  of  science.  It  is  his  store-house  of  facts ;  and  his 
method  of  ascertaining  what  the  Bible  teaches,  is  the  same 
as  that  which  the  natural  philosopher  adopts  to  ascertain 
what  nature  teaches.  In  the  first  place,  he  comes  to  his 
task  with  all  the  assumptions  above  mentioned.  He  must 
assume  the  validity  of  those  laws  of  belief  which  God  has 
impressed  upon  our  nature." 

"In  the  second  place,  the  duty  of  the  Christian  theologian 
is  to  ascertain,  collect,  and  combine  all  the  facts  which  God 
has  revealed  concerning  himself  and  our  relation  to  him." 
These  facts  are  all  in  the  Bible. 

"In  the  third  place,  the  theologian  must  be  guided  by  the 
same  rules  in  the  collection  of  facts,  as  govern  the  man 
of  science. 

"i.  This  collection  must  be  made  with  diligence  and  care. 
It  is  not  an  easy  work.  There  is  in  every  department  of 
investigation  great  liability  to  error.  Almost  all  false  theo- 
ries in  science  and  false  doctrines  in  theology  are  due  in  a 
great  degree  to  mistakes  as  to  matters  of  fact.  A  distin- 
guished naturalist  said  he  repeated  an  experiment  a  thou- 
sand times  before  he  felt  authorised  to  announce  the  result 
to  the  scientific  world  as  an  established  fact. 

"2.  This  collection  of  facts  must  not  only  be  carefully  con- 
ducted, but  also  comprehensive,  and  if  possible,  exhaustive. 
An  imperfect  induction  of  facts  led  men  for  ages  to  believe 
that  the  sun  moved  round  the  earth,  and  that  the  earth  was 
an  extended  plain.  In  theology  a  partial  induction  of  par- 
ticulars has  led  to  like  serious  errors." 

"We  must  be  honest  here,  as  the  true  student  of  nature 
is  honest  in  his  induction.  Even  scientific  men  are  some- 
times led  to  suppress  or  to  pervert  facts  which  militate 
against  their  favorite  theories :  but  the  temptation  to  this 
form  of  dishonesty  is  far  less  in  their  case,  than  in  that  of 
the  theologian. 


500 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


"In  the  fourth  place,  in  theology  as  in  natural  science, 
principles  are  derived  from  facts,  and  not  impressed  upon 
them." 

"It  is  the  fundamental  principle  of  all  sciences,  and  of 
theology  among  the  rest,  that  theory  is  to  be  determined  by 
facts,  and  not  facts  by  theory.  As  natural  science  was  a 
chaos  until  the  principle  of  induction  was  admitted  and 
faithfully  carried  out,  theology  is  a  jumble  of  human  specu- 
lations, not  worth  a  straw,  when  men  refuse  to  apply  the 
same  principle  to  the  study  of  the  word  of  God." 

"The  true  method  of  theology  is,  therefore,  the  inductive, 
which  assumes  that  the  Bible  contains  all  the  facts  or  truths 
which  form  the  contents  of  theology,  just  as  the  facts  of 
nature  are  the  contents  of  the  natural  sciences.  It  is  also 
assumed  that  the  relation  of  these  Biblical  facts  to  each 
other,  the  principles  involved  in  them,  the  laws  which  deter- 
mine them,  are  in  the  facts  themselves,  and  are  to  be  deduced 
from  them,  just  as  the  laws  of  nature  are  deduced 
from  the  facts  of  nature.  In  neither  case  are  the  principles 
derived  from  the  mind  and  imposed  upon  the  facts,  but 
equally  in  both  departments,  the  principles  or  laws  are 
deduced  from  the  facts  and  recognised  by  the  mind." 

"If  the  views  presented  in  the  preceding  chapter  be  cor- 
rect, the  question,  What  is  Theology?  is  already  answered. 
If  natural  science  be  concerned  with  the  facts  and  laws  of 
nature,  theology  is  concerned  with  the  facts  and  the  princi- 
ples of  the  Bible.  If  the  object  of  the  one  be  to  arrange 
and  systematise  the  facts  of  the  external  world,  and  to 
ascertain  the  laws  by  which  they  are  determined;  the  object 
of  the  other  is  to  systematise  the  facts  of  the  Bible,  and 
ascertain  the  principles  or  general  truths  which  those  facts 
involve."    (Hodge's  Systematic  Theology,  pp.  1-18.) 

The  next  thing  which  Dr.  Dabney  overlooks  is  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  knowledge  of  Bible  truth  and  the 
saving  knowledge  of  that  truth.  The  first  we  obtain  by  the 
use  of  our  natural  reason;  the  second  by  means  of  the 
enlightening  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Dr.  Dabney  must  be 
aware  of  this  distinction ;  he  must  know  the  passages  which 
he  quotes  from  the  Bible  and  the  Confession  of  Faith  relate 


HIS  TEACHINGS 


501 


exclusively  to  the  second  and  not  at  all  to  the  first.  The 
distinction  is  set  forth  with  admirable  clearness  in  the 
Lectures  on  Theology  which  have  been  left  to  us  as  so 
precious  a  legacy  by  that  master  in  Israel,  Dr.  Thornwell : 

"I  accept  the  definition  now  generally  given,  that  theol- 
ogy is  the  science  of  religion ;  that  is,  it  is  the  system  of 
doctrine  in  its  logical  connexion  and  dependence,  which, 
when  spiritually  discerned,  produces  true  piety.  There  is  a 
twofold  cognition  of  Divine  truth — one  natural,  resulting 
from  the  ordinary  exercise  of  our  faculties  of  knowledge, 
and  the  other  supernatural  or  spiritual,  resulting  from  the 
gracious  illumination  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  habit  which 
corresponds  to  the  first,  like  every  other  habit  of  science, 
is  mere  speculative  knowledge.  The  habit  which  corre- 
sponds to  the  other  is  true  religion.  The  doctrine,  to  use  the 
expressive  analogy  of  St.  Paul,  (Rom.  vi.  17,)  is  the  mould, 
and  religion  the  image  that  it  leaves  upon  the  heart,  which 
the  Spirit  has  softened  to  receive  the  impression.  There  is, 
first,  the  truth,  and  that  is  theology ;  there  is  next  the  cordial 
and  spiritual  apprehension  of  it,  and  that  is  the  obedience 
of  faith,  which  is  synonymous  with  true  religion.  In  other 
words,  the  truth  objectively  considered  is  theology;  sub- 
jectively received,  under  Divine  illumination,  it  is  religion. 
In  relation  to  religion,  therefore,  theology  is  a  science  only 
in  the  objective  sense." 

"In  the  next  place,  it  is  not  to  be  overlooked  that  there  is 
a  natural  knowledge  of  theology  which  is  pure  science ; 
which  rests  in  speculation ;  which  knows,  according  to  the 
familiar  adage,  only  that  it  may  know.  This  natural  knowl- 
edge is  the  instrument  of  spiritual  cognition.  It  is  the  seed 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  quickens  into  vital  godliness.  We 
must  first  know  as  men  before  we  can  know  as  renewed 
men.  Theology,  as  thus  ending  in  speculation  or  in  theory, 
can  be  taught,  but  religion  must  be  implanted.''  {Thornwell s 
Collected  Writings,  vol.  1,  pp.  36,  37.) 

We  confess  we  were  greatly  surprised  that  these  obvious 
distinctions  in  the  department  of  theology  should  have 
escaped  Dr.  Dabney's  attention ;  we  were  better  prepared 
for  his  misapprehension  of  geology  which  is  betrayed  by  his 


502 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


question  which  we  have  quoted  above.  He  is  quite  right  in 
regarding  this  question  as  decisive,  "Is  the  work  of  the 
geologist,  in  constructing  hypotheses,  inductions,  inferences, 
merely  hermeneutical  ?"  To  this  no  one  acquainted  with 
natural  science  could  hesitate  a  moment  to  give  an  affirma- 
tive answer:  his  work  is  merely  hermeneutical.  Dr.  Dab- 
ney  of  course  expected  a  negative  reply ;  but  truth  will  not 
permit  him  to  be  gratified.  Interpretation  is  the  sole  work 
of  all  natural  science,  as  indeed  of  all  true  science. 

This  question  is  of  great  importance  as  furnishing  a  com- 
plete explanation  of  a  fact  otherwise  so  mysterious.  How 
does  it  happen  that  Dr.  Dabney  and  many  others  among  the 
best  men  living,  in  this  and  other  lands,  men  of  thorough 
learning  in  many  directions,  sincerely  desiring  to  reach  the 
truth — how  does  it  happen  that  such  men  maintain  their 
present  attitude  towards  geology  and  natural  science  gen- 
erally? Dr.  Dabney's  question  explains  it  all — they  fail  to 
perceive  the  purely  hermeneutical  character  of  natural 
science.  If  they  were  right  in  the  single  position  that 
natural  science  is  not  purely  hermeneutical,  their  suspicions 
and  assaults  and  denunciations  would  be  not  merely  justifia- 
ble, but  praiseworthy.  If  these  truth-loving  men  could  only 
see  natural  science  as  it  is,  as  the  interpreter  of  nature,  of 
the  works  of  God,  they  could  not  and  would  not  assail  it  as 
they  now  feel  impelled  to  do.  There  have  been  false  inter- 
pretations of  nature,  just  as  there  have  been  false  interpre- 
tations of  Scripture;  but  as  we  do  not  assail  and  denounce 
theological  science  for  the  one,  let  us  not  assail  and 
denounce  natural  science  for  the  other.  In  each  case  expose 
the  error,  but  do  not  denounce  the  science. 

That  we  have  correctly  stated  the  true  character  of  induc- 
tive science,  we  would  suppose  to  be  well  known  by  all,  but 
for  the  sad  proofs  to  the  contrary  which  present  themselves 
on  every  hand.  Since  the  days  of  Lord  Bacon,  the  most 
familiar  name  applied  to  the  student  of  physical  science  has 
been  " Interpreter  of  nature."  As  this  has  been  so  remark- 
ably overlooked  by  the  respected  writer,  it  may  not  be 
amiss  to  quote  here  the  first  aphorism  from  that  immortal 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


503 


work,  the  ''Novum  Organum,  or,  True  Suggestions  for  the 
Interpretation  of  Nature" : 

"Man,  as  the  minister  and  interpreter  of  nature,  does  and 
understands  as  much  as  his  observations  on  the  order  of 
nature,  either  with  regard  to  things  or  the  mind,  permit 
him,  and  neither  knows  nor  is  capable  of  more." 

The  remaining  topics  must  be  treated  more  briefly.  We 
do  not  intend  to  repeat  the  satisfactory  reasons  previously 
given  why  Dr.  Dabney's  objections  to  the  existence  of  the 
chair  of  "Natural  Science  in  Connexion  with  Revelation"  in 
the  Columbia  Theological  Seminary,  should  not  be  heeded. 
But  he  should  not  have  attributed  our  criticism  of  his 
assaults  on  science  to  "retaliation  for  his  presuming  to  exer- 
cise his  right"  in  this  respect.  (P.  542.)  He  has  the  undoubted 
right  to  act  as  he  has  done;  and  we  have  never  thought  of 
objecting  to  his  exercise  of  it.  Columbia  Seminary  is  under 
the  direct  control  of  our  entire  Church,  and  every  minister 
and  private  member  has  a  right  to  attempt  to  make  it  as 
efficient  as  possible.  The  fact  that  Dr.  Dabney  is  an  hon- 
ored Professor  in  another  Seminary  which  is  not  under  the 
control  of  our  entire  Church  and  would  not  be  required  to 
obey  the  commands  of  the  General  Assembly,  does  not  in 
the  least  deprive  him  of  his  right  to  attempt  through  the 
Assembly  to  regulate  the  affairs  of  that  Seminary  which  is 
under  its  control.  We  have  shown  that  he  errs  in  his 
opinion  on  this  question;  but  we  do  not  object  to  his 
expressing  it.  But  he  cannot  be  serious  in  his  objections  to 
the  chair  we  occupy  in  the  Columbia  Seminary,  when  he 
practically  from  his  own  chair  of  instruction  shows  that  his 
arguments  have  no  influence  over  his  own  course.  His 
"most  conclusive  argument"  against  teaching  natural 
science  in  a  theological  seminary  is  that  "the  Church  cannot 
by  ecclesiastical  power  teach  her  presbyters  ex  cathedra  in 
her  Seminaries  a  set  of  opinions  which  are  clear  outside 
of  our  doctrinal  covenants — namely,  our  Confession  and 
Catechisms."  Until  he  shows  that  he  is  in  earnest  in  this 
argument,  by  ceasing  himself  to  teach  mental  science,  which 
is  "clear  outside  of  our  doctrinal  covenants,"  in  a  Seminary, 


504 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


it  is  hardly  worth  while  to  discuss  further  his  objections  to 
our  teaching  natural  science. 

Another  point  we  shall  not  now  examine,  is  the  respected 
writer's  failure  to  understand  the  real  bearing-  of  the  recent 
"Deep-Sea  Soundings,"  which  he  supposes  have  cast  so 
much  doubt  on  geology.  If  we  should  safely  return  after 
crossing  the  "deep-sea"  once  more,  we  hope  to  place  before 
the  readers  of  this  journal  the  true  character  of  these  dis- 
coveries ;  without  immediate  reference  to  the  present  dis- 
cussion. 

We  hardly  think  the  writer  has  been  successful  in  defend- 
ing his  mode  of  using  the  term  "naturalist/'  in  some  cases 
meaning  a  student  of  nature,  in  others  one  who  embraces 
"naturalism."  We  did  not  object  to  the  term  "naturalism," 
but  to  the  passing  from  one  meaning  of  "naturalist"  to 
another  in  a  way  which  must  mislead.  His  defence  consists 
chiefly  in  proving  that  "naturalism"  is  still  currently  used ; 
but  this  does  not  remove  the  objection  we  made.  If  we 
should  be  speaking  of  country  residences  as  "villas,"  we 
would  not  thereby  justify  our  calling  the  residents  "vil- 
lains" ;  nor  would  we  be  justified  in  pronouncing  one  who 
holds  a  "dogma"  a  "dogmatist." 

We  cannot  wholly  pass  over  the  writer's  defence  of  his 
geological  accuracy,  and  his  statement  that  our  "real  geol- 
ogy" differs  from  that  of  Dana  and  Lyell.  He  says  our 
classification  "differs  from  the  brief  outline  he  gave  chiefly 
(not  only)  by  using  more  subdivisions,"  and  defends  him- 
self by  stating  that  Dr.  Molloy  only  "names  as  his  three 
divisions,  igneous,  metamorphic,  and  aqueous  rocks."  We  did 
not  object  to  Dr.  Dabney's  classification  as  too  brief,  but  as 
entirely  wrong.  Dr.  Molloy's  is  quite  right,  and  resembles 
Dr.  Dabney's  in  nothing.  It  is  difficult  to  explain  these 
errors  to  readers  who  are  not  already  acquainted  with 
geology;  and  therefore  we  are  forced  to  use  the  plainest 
illustrations,  if  we  would  make  ourselves  understood.  It  is 
quite  right  to  say  briefly  that  America  is  subdivided  into 
North  and  South  America ;  but  it  is  wholly  wrong  to  say 
that  it  is  subdivided  into  North  America,  Brazil,  Canada,  the 
United  States,  and  Tennessee.    Let  the  scheme  which  was 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


505 


criticised  be  examined,  and  the  point  of  this  illustration  will 
be  seen.  It  may  seem  that  this  is  a  matter  of  no  conse- 
quence ;  but  if  geography  were  under  discussion,  would  we 
attach  much  importance  to  the  geographical  arguments  of 
one  who  would  give  the  last  mentioned  subdivision  of 
America?  This  question  shows  why  it  is  not  amiss  to  quote 
the  following  additional  illustration  of  geological  knowl- 
edge : 

"They  say  that  the  cretaceous  deposits  rank  as  mesozoic, 
below  the  pliocene,  eocene,  and  miocene  in  order,  and  conse- 
quently older  in  origin.  That  is,  Sir  Chas.  Lyell  says  so,  in 
his  most  recent  work,  (if  he  is  any  authority  with  Dr. 
Woodrow.)"    Page  562. 

Sir  Charles  Lyell  is  authority  with  us  as  to  the  use  of 
these  terms,  because  he  introduced  them  into  the  science 
more  than  forty  years  ago.  But  he  never  used  them  in  that 
way.  Let  the  reader  observe  that  the  point  under  discus- 
sion here  is  the  historical  order  of  succession  of  the  rocks. 
Let  him  further  reflect  what  he  would  think  of  a  historian 
who  should  inform  him  that  after  the  Pharaohs  of  Egypt 
came  the  modern  kings  of  England,  the  Caesars  of  Rome, 
and  the  Byzantine  Emperors,  in  order.  This  is  precisely 
what  has  been  done  above.  In  this  case  the  order  of  succes- 
sion is  everything;  and  yet  we  are  gravely  told  that  the 
order  is  mesozoic,  followed  by  pliocene,  eocene,  and 
miocene;  whereas,  Lyell  (and  every  other  geologist)  gives 
as  the  order,  eocene,  miocene,  and  pliocene.* 

We  shall  not  undertake  to  defend  the  geological  classifica- 
tion with  which  we  compared  Dr.  Dabney's,  on  page  369. 

*The  writer  thinks  we  are  impolite  when  we  point  out  such  facts  as 
those  above  given,  and  complains  of  our  "school  of  manners."  P.  544. 
Now,  we  cannot  agree  with  him  in  this  respect;  we  think  it  perfectly 
proper.  We  have  never  impugned  his  motives;  we  accord  him  the  fullest 
credit  as  actuated  solely  by  a  desire  to  promote  the  truth.  If  it  were 
worth  while  to  discuss  "manners,"  politeness,  etc.,  we  would  say  that  we 
regard  it  as  perfectly  polite  for  Dr.  Dabney  to  prove  us  wrong,  if  he  can, 
either  by  showing  that  our  arguments  are  illogical,  or  that  we  are  not 
acquainted  with  the  subject;  but  that  it  is  inconsistent  with  our  "school  of 
manners"  to  attribute  improper  motives  and  designs  to  an  opponent  in 
debate — as,  for  example,  "retaliation,"  p.  542;  "pleasure  of  printing  a 
slashing  criticism  of  one  who  had  given  no  provocation  to  him,"  p.  548; 
"insinuating,"  p.  570,  etc.  But  it  is  not  worth  while  to  say  more  on 
this  point. 


506 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


He  says  it  "is  not  identical  with  Dana's  or  Lyell's  any  more 
than  his"!  And  this  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  he 
gravely  tells  his  students,  as  we  saw,  (Lectures,  p.  170,)  that 
the  "secondary  rocks  contain  remains  of  life  paleozoic  and 
miocene" ;  and  that  the  "tertiary  rocks  and  clays  contain 
pliocene  fossils,"  which  last  statement  is  true  enough,  but 
then  the  tertiary  contains  the  miocene  also,  not  to  speak  of 
the  eocene.  If  we  needed  to  defend  ourselves,  all  that  would 
be  necessary  would  be  a  reference  to  any  geological  work 
whatever;  but  Dr.  Dabney  has  saved  us  the  trouble  by 
quoting  on  page  566  the  subdivisions  given  by  Professor 
Duns  and  Professor  Dana,  which  correspond  exactly  with 
those  which  we  presented.  The  fact  that  Dr.  Dabney — 
amusingly  enough — made  these  quotations  to  prove  us 
wrong,  does  not  render  them  the  less  valuable  for  the  pur- 
pose to  which  we  here  apply  them. 

We  earnestly  hope  that  a  further  study  of  these  subjects 
will  produce  a  radical  change  in  the  writer's  views.  It  is 
useless  for  him  to  attempt  to  push  back  the  progress  of 
scientific  truth  by  his  "single  point"  or  any  number  which 
he  may  add  to  it.  He  cannot  construct  a  mop  strong  enough 
to  sweep  back  the  ocean  of  science,  however  skilful  he  may 
be.  He  is  certainly  in  earnest  in  wielding  such  mop  as  he 
has.  With  a  shout  of  triumphant  laughter,  he  dashes  it 
into  the  wave  of  spectroscopic  discoveries,  calling  them 
"rays  of  moonshine,  in  the  thinnest  of  metaphorical  senses" 
(page  568)  ;  then  he  plunges  into  literal  masses  of  water,  and 
resisting  the  wave  of  the  science  of  hydraulics,  calls  to  his 
help  "experienced  pilots  and  boatmen  of  the  Mississippi" 
who  "are  generally  of  opinion  that  the  lower  strata  of  water 
in  its  channel  run  with  far  more  velocity  than  the  surface" ! 
So.  Pres.  Review,  1861,  p.  261.  Thus  he  furiously  brand- 
ishes his  mop  against  each  succeeding  wave,  pushing  it 
back  with  all  his  might.  But  the  ocean  rolls  on,  and  never 
minds  him ;  science  is  utterly  unconscious  of  his  opposition. 
If  this  were  all,  the  contest  would  be  simply  amusing.  But 
it  is  not  all.  As  has  been  seen,  there  are  all  over  the  land 
inquirers  as  to  the  truth  of  the  Bible  who  know  more  or  less 
distinctly  that  physical  science  is  truth.    Now,  we  ask 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


507 


again,  what  effect  will  be  produced  upon  these  inquirers  if 
their  religious  teachers  tell  them  that  the  "spirit  of  these 
sciences  is  essentially  infidel  and  rationalistic"?  What 
effect  will  be  produced  upon  them  when  they  are  told  by  one 
so  eminent  and  so  justly  esteemed  as  Dr.  Dabney :  "We  have 
infidel  lawyers  and  physicians:  but  they  are  infidels,  not 
because  of  their  studies  in  jurisprudence,  therapeutics,  or 
anatomy;  but  because  they  have  turned  aside  to  dabble  in 
geology  and  its  connexions."  (P.  552.)  There  are  numbers, 
even  among  our  most  learned  and  most  devoted  ministers, 
who  share  these  views  which  we  regard  as  so  inconsistent 
with  the  truth  and  as  so  fatal  in  their  consequences.  We 
would  fain  do  something  to  prevent  these  terrible  conse- 
quences by  persuading  all  whom  we  can  influence  to  review 
the  ground  on  which  they  base  their  present  opinions ;  confi- 
dent that  a  fair  reexamination  will  without  fail  lead  to  a 
change  of  mind. 

We  therefore  again  entreat  all  who  will  listen  to  us,  by 
the  love  of  the  souls  of  our  fellow-men,  that  they  will  not 
continue  to  represent  God's  truth  the  knowledge  of  which  is 
gained  from  the  study  of  his  works  as  inconsistent  with  that 
which  his  infinite  love  and  tender  mercy  bestow  upon  us  in 
his  word  of  life.  Let  them  no  longer  deceive  themselves 
and  mislead  others  by  believing  and  teaching  that  physical 
science  is  science  falsely  socalled.  But  denying  and  decry- 
ing none  of  the  many  sides  of  truth,  heartily  rejoicing  in 
all,  let  them  with  renewed  zeal  hold  up  to  the  view  of  men 
the  unobscured  grace  and  truth  which  came  by  Jesus 
Christ. 


508 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Defence  Before  the  General  Assembly  at  fiunts- 
ville,  Ala.,  May,  1871. 


ORGANISATION  OF  ASSEMBLY. 


Rev.  Wm.  S.  Plumer,  D.  D.,  Moderator. 
Rev.  Joseph  R.  Wilson,  D.  D.,  Stated  Clerk. 
Rev.  Wm.  Brown,  D.  D.,  Permanent  Clerk. 
Rev.  J.  W.  Bachman,  Temporary  Clerk. 


PRESBYTERIES. 

East  Alabama 
South  Alabama 
Tuscaloosa 

Arkansas 

Indian 

Ouachita 


Atlanta 

Augusta 

Cherokes 

Florida 

Macon 

Savannah 

Central  Ohio 

Ebenezer 

LouisvilU 

Muhlenburg 
Paducah 
Transylvania 
West  Lexington 

Chickasaw 
Memphis 
North  Mississippi 
Western  District 

Central  Mississippi 

Louisiana 

Mississippi 


ministers. 

Synod  of  Alabama. 
George  L.  Petrie 
J.  R.  Burgett,  D.  D. 
C.  M.  Hutton 

Synod  of  Arkansas. 
W.  A.  Sample 

E.  McNair 

Synod  of  Georgia. 
John  S.  Wilson,  D.  D. 
Jos.  R.  Wilson,  D.  D. 
John  W.  Baker 
A.  Baker 

David  Wills,  D.  D. 
J.  H.  Alexander 
Synod  of  Kentucky. 
A.  M.  Cowan 
J.  D.  McClintock 
W.  W.  Hill,  D.  D. 
Gilbert  Gordon 
W.  D.  Morton 
J.  T.  Hendrick,  D.  D. 
W.  F.  Junkin 

F.  G.  Strahan 
Synod  of  Memphis. 

E.  O.  Frierson 
S.  B.  O.  Wilson 
Edwin  Cater 
M.  M.  Marshall,  D.  D. 
Synod  of  Mississippi. 
R.  Mclnnis 
R.  S.  McAllister 
Wiley  Burgess 


RULING  ELDERS. 

Edwin  Fay 
A.  B.  Cooper 
H.  M.  Somerville 

W.  S.  Whitley 
W.  H.  Crawford 

W.  P.  Inman 
W.  L.  Mitchell 
R.  C.  Word 
T.  M.  Palmer 

S.  E.  Myddelton 


S.  W.  McKibben 
A.  Davidson 
J.  H.  Huber 


J.  B.  Kenney 

R.  M.  Patton 
C.  Lynn 

C.  F.  Reed 

George  T.  Swann 
A.  M.  Smylie 
A.  F.  Andre 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


509 


PRESBYTERIES. 

New  Orleans 
Red  River 
Tombeckbee 


Holston 
KnoxvilU 
Nashville 
North  Alabama 


Concord 

Fayetteville 

Mecklenburg 

Orange 

Wilmington 

Bethel 

Charleston 

Harmony 

South  Carolina 


Brazos 

Central  Texas 
Eastern  Texas 
Western  Texas 

Abingdon 
Chesapeake- 
East  Hanover 
Greenbrier 
Lexington 

Montgomery 
Roanoke 
West  Hanover 
Winchester 


MINISTERS. 

R.  Q.  Mallard 
J.  T.  Davidson 
J.  N.  Carothers 

Synod  of  Nashville. 
J.  W.  Bachman 
Thos.  H.  McCallie 
J.  H.  Bryson 
J.  M.  P.  Otts 

Synod  of  North  Carolina. 
J.  Rumple 
A.  McMillan 
A.  W.  Miller,  D.  D. 
S.  A.  Stanfield 
L.  McKinnon 

Synod  of  South  Carolina. 
J.  S.  Bailey 
C.  S.  Vedder 
Wm.  S.  Plumer,  D.  D. 
Thos.  H.  Law 
Wm.  P.  Jacobs 

Synod  of  Texas. 
W.  A.  Shaw 
A.  A.  Porter,  D.  D. 
S.  F.  Tenney 
J.  M.  Connelly 

Synod  of  Virginia. 
Isaac  N.  Naff 
R.  T.  Berry 
A.  D.  Pollock 
T.  Pryor,  D.  D. 
R.  R.  Houston 
S.  J.  Baird,  D.  D. 
J.  L.  Kirkpatrick,  D.  D. 
W.  F.  Wilhelm 
Thos.  E.  Peck,  D.  D. 
R.  L.  Dabney,  D.  D. 
John  Johnston 


RULING  ELDERS. 

W.  A.  Bartlett 
J.  H.  Stroud 
R.  F.  Houston 


S.  B.  McAdams 
R.  M.  Hooke 
C.  N.  Ordway 
J.  Gillespie 

J.  K.  Graham 
Thomas  J.  Morisey 
H.  Connor  Reid 
W.  L.  Stamps 
John  McLaurin 


S.  Alexander 
Joseph  A.  Enslow 
T.  B.  Fraser 
S.  Johnstone 
F.  L.  Anderson 

W.  C.  Dodson 
E.  H.  Carter 
A.  M.  Goodman 
James  N.  Smith 


R.  E.  Grant 
H.  C.  Kirk 
L.  J.  Rothrock 
Wm.  H.  Tappey 
James  Withrow 
James  W.  Crawford 
J.  S.  WaUace 
J.  N.  Gordon 
W.  W.  Carrington 
P.  P.  Barbour 
J.  C.  Baker 


The  Rev.  Dr.  J.  Leighton  Wilson,  Secretary  of  Sustentation 
and  Foreign  Missions,  after  reading  his  report,  said : 

Now,  Mr.  Moderator,  I  have  what  is  to  me  a  somewhat  pain- 
ful duty  to  perform.    I  beg  leave  to  lay  before  the  Assembly  a 


510 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


paper  bearing  upon  the  charges  which  have  been  made  against 
the  officers  of  the  Committee.    May  I  read  it? 

The  Moderator — Certainly! 

Dr.  Wilson  then  read  as  follows : 

"The  undersigned,  Secretary  and  Treasurer  of  Sustentation 
and  Foreign  Missions,  beg  leave  to  lay  before  the  Assembly  the 
following  statement,  viz:  That  they  have  been  charged  by  one 
who  is  a  member  of  this  Assembly,  and  through  the  medium  of 
an  extensively  circulated  journal — the  one  with  the  neglect  of 
official  duty ;  and  the  other,  not  only  with  the  neglect  of  duty, 
but,  as  is  generally  understood,  with  dishonesty  in  the  manage- 
ment of  the  funds  of  the  Church.  The  complainants  ask  the 
Assembly  to  have  the  several  charges  investigated,  with  the 
view  of  displacing  these  officers,  in  case  the  charges  are  sub- 
stantiated; or  vindicated,  and  thereby  vindicate  the  Assembly 
itself,  in  case  they  are  found  to  be  false.  Copies  of  the  pub- 
lished articles  are  herewith  submitted. 

"Respectfully  submitted, 

"J.  Lkighton  Wilson, 
"James  Woodrow." 

A  special  committee  was  appointed,  consisting  of  Gov.  Pat- 
ton,  Judge  Swann,  Mr.  J.  A.  Enslow,  Dr.  Burgett,  and  Dr. 
Kirkpatrick.    This  committee  brought  in  the  following  report : 

The  Special  Committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  request 
of  the  Secretary  and  Treasurer  of  the  Executive  Committees  of 
Sustentation  and  Foreign  Missions,  that  the  Assembly  would 
institute  an  investigation  concerning  certain  charges  or  com- 
plaints made  and  published  against  them  through  the  columns 
of  one  of  our  religious  journals,  in  reference  to  their  official 
conduct,  beg  leave  to  present  the  following  report: 

They  have  carefully  and  diligently  examined  the  published 
articles  referred  to  and  placed  in  their  hands,  and  noted  particu- 
larly those  portions  reflecting  upon  those  brethren  in  their 
management  of  these  great  interests  of  our  Church  intrusted  to 
their  care,  and  in  connexion  therewith  they  have  had  access  to 
all  the  necessary  books  and  papers  for  ascertaining  satisfac- 
torily whether  or  not  there  is  any  ground  for  complaint. 

After  such  examination,  they  feel  compelled,  in  view  of  the 
facts  in  the  case,  and  in  justice  to  those  brethren  and  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


511 


Church,  which  has  reposed  in  them  those  trusts,  to  come  to  the 
following  conclusions : 

1.  It  is  insinuated  that  they  are  aiming  by  a  centralisation  of 
power  and  authority  to  obtain  exclusive  control  of  matters 
intrusted  to  them,  that  they  may  thereby  promote  the  welfare 
of  one  portion  of  the  Church  to  the  detriment  of  other  portions 
which  are  equally  or  more  deserving  of  help. 

For  this  insinuation  or  complaint,  in  the  judgment  of  your 
Committee,  there  is  not  the  slightest  ground.  There  is  no 
evidence  that  the  Secretary  or  Treasurer,  or  those  associated 
with  them  in  these  Executive  Committees,  have  exercised  or 
aimed  to  exercise  any  more  power  or  authority  than  is  given 
to  them  by  the  General  Assembly;  and  they  are  glad  to  know 
that  whatever  influence  may  be  possessed,  especially  by  the 
Secretary  or  Treasurer  of  Sustentation  and  Foreign  Missions, 
is  due  to  their  eminent  piety,  to  their  moral  worth,  and  their 
great  devotion  to  the  interests  of  the  Church. 

2.  It  is  insinuated  that  the  causes  of  Sustentation  and  For- 
eign Missions  are  suffering  through  mismanagement  and  neglect 
of  the  Secretary  and  Treasurer,  because  of  the  multiplicity  of 
their  engagements. 

In  the  judgment  of  your  Committee,  and  after  an  examina- 
tion of  the  facts  as  furnished  in  the  documents  before  us,  there 
is  no  evidence  that  these  interests  of  the  Church  are  suffering 
in  any  degree  by  a  multiplicity  of  their  appointments. 

3.  It  is  intimated  that  there  has  been  embezzlement  or  cul- 
pable expenditure  of  the  funds  placed  in  their  hands,  which  has 
been  covered  up  by  false  or  defective  reports. 

From  an  examination  of  the  accounts,  to  all  of  which  your 
Committee  have  had  free  access,  there  is  not  the  slightest  proof 
of  any  dishonesty  or  careless  disposal  of  such  funds.  The 
accounts,  moreover,  of  each  year,  as  every  member  of  the 
Assembly  knows,  have  all  been  audited  by  a  committee 
appointed  for  that  purpose,  and  found  to  be  correct  and  sus- 
tained by  proper  vouchers. 

4.  It  is  insinuated  that  they  have  taken  advantage  of  their 
position  to  pay  themselves  more,  in  the  way  of  salaries,  than 
was  authorised  or  proper  under  the  circumstances. 


512 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


An  examination  of  the  books  shows  that  their  compensation 
for  so  much  labor  and  responsibility  has  been  only  such  as  was 
authorised  by  the  Executive  Committees,  and  is  so  moderate 
that  it  is  difficult  to  know  how  any  person  can  complain  of  its 
being  too  large.  It  is  ascertained,  moreover,  that  all  the 
expenses  of  conducting  these  important  matters,  including 
salaries,  clerk's  hire,  office  rent,  fuel,  lights,  etc.,  etc.,  have  been 
remarkably  economical,  amounting  to  a  fraction  over  seven 
per  cent,  of  the  whole  amount — some  $73,000 — received  and 
disbursed  by  them. 

In  view  of  all  the  facts  in  the  case,  your  Committee  would 
recommend  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolutions : 

Resolved,  1.  That  this  Assembly  does  hereby  most  cordially 
endorse  the  conduct  of  the  Secretary  and  Treasurer  of  Susten- 
tation  and  Foreign  Missions,  the  Rev.  J.  L.  Wilson,  D.  D.,  and 
the  Rev.  James  Woodrow,  D.  D.,  in  their  management  of  the 
trust  committed  to  them. 

2.  That  this  Assembly  condemns  in  toto  all  such  complaints 
and  insinuations  as  may  have  been  made  against  these  brethren, 
who  have  been  so  faithful  and  untiring  in  their  official  duties, 
as  alike  unjust  to  them  and  injurious  to  the  welfare  of  the 
Church. 

3.  That  the  Assembly,  while  fully  admitting  the  right  of  free 
discussion  of  its  own  acts  and  deliverances,  as  well  as  the 
official  conduct  of  all  its  officers,  does  hereby  most  earnestly 
caution  the  editors  of  our  religious  journals,  as  well  as  their 
contributors,  against  the  publication  of  articles  reflecting  thus 
publicly  on  the  conduct  of  those  who  are  acting  as  its  servants, 
because  of  the  injury  which  might  be  inflicted  upon  them  per- 
sonally, and  upon  the  Church  generally ;  and  that  it  reminds  and 
urges  on  all  who  have  charges  or  complaints  to  make,  which,  if 
true,  would  result  in  the  removal  of  those  complained  of,  that 
the  proper  place  for  making  such  charges  or  complaints  is  on 
the  floor  of  the  Assembly. 

Respectfully  submitted  by  order  of  the  Committee, 

R.  M.  Patton,  Chairman. 

Gov.  Patton,  after  reading  the  report,  said :  I  do  not  think 
it  is  necessary  to  say  anything  more  than  what  is  in  that 
elaborate  report.    It  was  prepared  after  more  than  one  meeting 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


513 


of  the  Committee,  and  after  examination  of  all  the  means  by 
which  they  could  arrive  at  proper  conclusions.  The  Auditing 
Committee,  to  whom  the  accounts  were  referred,  will  report 
to-morrow,  or  to-day,  if  there  shall  be  an  opportunity.  We 
had  to  call  upon  individuals  for  such  information  as  the  Com- 
mittee was  entitled  to.  The  report  of  the  Auditing  Committee 
goes  into  the  dollars  and  cents  part  of  the  matter ;  and  anything 
now  upon  that  subject  may  not  be  proper.  If  this  report  is  not 
fully  satisfactory,  I  hope  that  good  brother,  the  Treasurer,  will 
be  allowed  to  explain. 

Dr.  Peck  made  a  motion,  which  was  agreed  to,  that  Dr. 
Woodrow  be  permitted  to  speak  upon  this  subject. 

Dr.  Hill — If  the  Auditing  Committee  can  report  now,  would 
it  not  be  well  for  them  to  do  so  ?  The  brother  who  sits  at  my 
left  [Mr.  Cater]  tells  me  that  until  that  report  is  made,  he  does 
not  feel  prepared  to  defend  what  he  has  said.  We  should  have 
the  whole  subject  before  us. 

Dr.  Kirkpatrick — I  do  not  see  what  that  has  to  do  wTith  the 
matter  before  us.  These  complaints  refer  to  the  accounts  of 
last  year,  not  the  present,  which  are  in  the  hands  of  the  Audit- 
ing Committee. 

Mr.  Cater — I  am  a  member  of  this  body,  sir,  and  am  I  not 
entitled  to  protection?  This  whole  matter  has  been  to  me  a 
very  great  surprise.  The  report  of  that  Committee,  as  has 
just  been  remarked,  is  in  part  connected  with  the  subject. 
Xow,  sir,  it  is  unfair,  it  is  an  abuse  of  my  privilege  as  a  mem- 
ber of  this  body,  to  be  treated  as  I  have  been  by  this  body  and 
by  that  Committee.  That  report  is  in  effect  a  judicial  sentence, 
and  I  must  at  once  demur  to  the  whole  proceeding.  The 
Assembly  has  no  right  to  entertain  any  paper  whatsoever 
reflecting  upon  moral  character.  If  you  set  the  precedent  that 
you  can  take  up  papers  which  are  published  everywhere 
throughout  this  country,  you  but  establish  that  which  is  there 
intimated  in  that  article,  [referring,  it  is  supposed,  to  one  of 
his  own  published  articles  in  the  Christian  Observer,]  that  these 
brethren  are  determined  to  crush  out  freedom  of  speech.  Bur, 
sir,  as  I  have  said.  I  have  been  taken  by  surprise  as  to  the 
statements  of  that  paper.  And  I  claim  it  as  a  privilege,  before 
sentence  of  death  is  pronounced  upon  me.  that  I  have  the  oppor- 


33— w 


514 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


tunity  of  saying  why  that  sentence  should  not  be  executed,  that 
a  reasonable  time  be  given  me  to  look  over  that  document  and 
prepare  my  defence.  I  am  not  afraid  to  appeal  to  the  judg- 
ment and  to  the  justice  of  the  people  of  God ;  and  if  I  obtain 
not  justice  here,  I  know,  sir,  where  justice  will  be  done.  I  am 
prepared  for  the  issue,  and  I  hope  the  great  Father  in  heaven 
will  not  forsake  me  when  the  lions  surround  me.  I  am  here 
alone,  but  there  are  voices  speaking  in  sympathy  with  me  all 
over  this  broad  land.  I  ask  simply  that  the  whole  matter  be 
made  the  order  of  the  day  for  to-morrow  at  some  time,  that  I 
may  have  the  privilege  of  looking  over  that  paper  in  order  to 
make  my  defence. 

The  Moderator — The  brother  is  not  before  us  judicially  at 
all.  It  is  entirely  proper  for  him  to  move  to  make  the  report 
the  order  of  the  day  at  any  time;  but  we  are  not  engaged  in 
judicial  business. 

Mr.  Cater — I  ask,  sir,  for  the  privilege  of  having  this  whole 
matter  postponed  till  to-morrow,  so  that  I  can  look  over  that 
paper  and  arrange  my  defence.    I  ask  it  as  a  privilege. 

The  Moderator — Well,  sir,  you  are  not  before  us  in  any 
judicial  capacity.  If  you  move  that  it  be  made  the  order  of 
the  day  for  to-morrow,  that  is  in  order. 

Mr.  McInnis  moved  that  the  report  be  made  the  order  of  the 
day  at  11  o'clock  to-morrow. 

Judge  Swann — I  wish,  sir,  simply  in  vindication  of  the  Com- 
mittee, to  say,  and  I  desire  the  Assembly  to  know,  that  if  this 
gentleman  is  surprised  now,  it  has  been  entirely  his  own  fault. 
Time  and  again  he  was  invited,  respectfully,  kindly,  and  affec- 
tionately, to  appear  before  the  Committee  and  make  his 
complaints ;  and  he  did  most  distinctly  decline  to  make  a  speci- 
fication of  his  complaints,  as  we  desired  him  to  do.  The 
Committee  were  then  compelled  to  proceed  simply  upon  such 
papers  as  we  could  have  access  to. 

Mr.  Cater — I  wish  to  make  one  explanation  just  there.  The 
precise  reason  why  I  did  not  appear  before  that  Committee  in 
that  capacity,  was  because  I  had  never  made  a  complaint.  I 
was  not  a  complainant.  I  was  complained  of ;  and  therefore  it 
was  not  in  order  to  ask  me  to  table  charges  which  I  had  no 
disposition  to  table  at  all.    I  would  say,  in  further  explanation 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


515 


of  those  very  articles,  that  I  disclaimed  all  intent  of  charging 
crime;  and  more  than  that,  I  attempted,  in  a  private  way,  after 
I  came  upon  this  ground,  to  meet  the  principal  party  who 
brought  the  complaint  here,  before  he  did  it.  Learning  that  he 
felt  aggrieved,  I  went  to  him  as  a  brother,  and  explained  to 
him,  as  I  could.,  the  whole  matter--— which  friendly  advance  on 
my  part  was  rejected. 

Dr.  S.  J.  Baird — I  have  never  read  any  of  the  matters  com- 
plained of,  as  they  were  published  in  the  papers.  I  have  no 
sympathy  with  the  impeachments,  which,  as  I  understand  and 
presume  from  all  indications,  were  contained  in  those  papers ; 
but  there  is  a  vast  deal  involved  to  that  brother  in  the  action  of 
this  Assembly.  He  is  not  before  us  judicially,  it  is  true,  but 
he  is  before  us  morally ;  and  it  is  certainly  becoming  this  Assem- 
bly to  allow  him  time  enough  to  examine  the  report  and  prepare 
himself  for  the  issue. 

Mr.  McInnis's  motion  was  agreed  to.  .  .  . 

Agreeably  to  order,  the  Assembly  then  took  up  the  report  of 
the  Special  Committee  of  Investigation  into  the  newspaper 
charges  against  Drs.  Woodrow  and  Wilson. 

Dr.  Hendrick — Mr.  Moderator,  I  have  risen  for  the  purpose 
of  making  a  motion  at  the  suggestion  of  friends,  which  I  hope 
will  meet  the  approval  of  the  Assembly.  I  move  that  this 
whole  matter  be  referred  to  a  committee  of  three  to  bring  in 
such  a  minute  as  in  their  judgment  may  be  thought  best.  I  do 
this,  very  firmly  persuaded  that  it  will  meet  the  approbation  of 
the  good  brother  who  has  made  the  objections.  And  having 
been  on  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Missions,  and  examined  the 
matter,  I  trust  it  will  meet  the  approbation  of  all  the  brethren 
concerned.  There  seems  to  be  a  misunderstanding  in  the  mind 
of  that  good  brother.  Those  brethren  who  are  in  office  are 
beyond  even  suspicion.  I  think  the  whole  matter  can  be  settled 
by  reference  to  two  or  three  brethren. 

Dr.  Peck — The  Assembly  is  not  prepared  to  vote  for  a 
motion  of  this  sort.  We  shall  be  voting  entirely  in  the  dark. 
The  brother  has  not  explained  what  this  committee  is  expected 
to  do,  and  how  the  subject  is  expected  to  come  before  them  or 
what  action  they  are  to  take,  different  from  the  action  already 
taken  by  the  special  committee. 


516 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Dr.  Hendrick — So  far  as  the  committees  are  concerned,  they 
have  all  reported;  and  we  have  no  special  committee  on  the 
subject. 

The  Moderator — We  have  the  report  of  the  special  com- 
mittee of  five,  of  which  Gov.  Patton  is  Chairman ;  and  that 
report  is  on  our  table  to  be  taken  up  this  morning. 

Dr.  Hendrick — I  remember  that,  and  I  have  no  doubt  the 
report  is  correct,  and  will  be  approved  by  the  Assembly;  but  I 
do  this  for  the  sake  of  reaching  a  result  which  will  be  satisfac- 
tory to  all  parties.  I  have  reason  to  believe  that  it  will  be.  If 
we  can  reach  this  result  without  going  through  a  long  and 
uncalled  for  debate,  it  will  be  far  better  than  to  take  up  our 
time  with  going  over  these  matters  again  and  again,  when 
perhaps  it  is  entirely  a  misunderstanding — a  misapprehension. 
Nobody  denies  the  right  of  any  member  to  investigate  carefully 
the  action  of  our  Executive  Committees,  and  to  censure  if  any- 
thing improper  is  found.  That  is  what  the  brother  seems  to 
desire.  If  he  is  wrong  in  the  matter,  let  him  be  put  right.  If 
the  matter  can  be  brought  before  a  committee  in  such  a  way  as 
to  exonerate  these  brethren,  and  at  the  same  time  satisfy  that 
good  brother's  mind,  will  it  not  be  far  better  than  an  excited 
debate?  The  object  is  to  settle  this  matter  in  a  way  that  will 
be  honorable  to  the  brethren,  and  at  the  same  time  kind  and 
generous  towards  the  brother  who  seems  alone  in  this  matter 
to  be  aggrieved.  I  think  we  ought  to  regard  his  feelings  and 
scruples. 

Mr.  Cater — The  course  indicated  by  the  brother  will  be 
entirely  satisfactory  to  me.  I  have  no  wish  to  make  a  speech 
on  the  question  at  all.  I  felt  aggrieved  at  two  or  three  posi- 
tions taken  by  the  Committee,  but  no  man  would  rejoice  more 
than  I  to  have  this  matter  settled  satisfactorily  to  the  other 
party  as  well  as  myself.  And  not  only  so,  but  I  am  prepared 
to  make  any  reasonable  concessions  to  the  other  party.  In  both 
the  articles  which  I  have  written,  I  disclaimed  emphatically  all 
personalities.  If  any  one  has  been  wounded  by  them,  no  one 
will  regret  it  more  than  myself.  I  would  hope,  if  it  is  the  mind 
of  the  Assembly,  that  this  disposition  of  the  matter  will  be 
made. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


517 


Dr.  Peck — I  have  been  under  the  impression  all  along  that, 
since  these  brethren  asked  for  an  investigation,  they  were  the 
aggrieved  parties ;  according  to  the  speech  of  Dr.  Hendrick,  Mr. 
Cater  is  the  aggrieved.  I  think  it  but  fair,  before  we  vote 
upon  this  motion,  that  we  hear  from  Dr.  Wilson  and  Dr.  Wood- 
row  as  to  how  they  feel  respecting  this  disposal  of  the  matter. 

Dr.  Hendrick — I  hope  we  shall  hear  from  them. 

Gov.  Patton — As  a  member  of  this  Special  Committee,  I  was 
exceedingly  gratified  to  have  two  most  eminent  Doctors  of 
Divinity  and  two  elders  of  more  than  ordinary  ability  and 
standing,  in  considering  a  question  which  is  now  proposed  to 
be  submitted  to  another  committee.  I  have  no  particular  pref- 
erence or  desire ;  but  the  question  necessarily  arises  in  my  mind, 
What  more  could  be  accomplished  by  another  Committee  to  act 
after  the  Assembly  adjourns?  I  presume  the  desire  is  that 
this  Committee  settle  the  difficulties  between  this  and  the  next 
Assembly.  It  can  be  done  now,  Brother  Moderator!  The 
report  is  a  plain  and  simple  one;  it  is  not  biassed  by  prejudice 
or  opposition.  Still,  I  am  not  wedded  to  that  report.  I  would 
have  liked  to  have  made  it,  if  possible,  more  tender,  moderate, 
more  filled  with  brotherly  love  and  everything  that  may  pour 
upon  the  troubled  waters  the  oil  of  peace  and  quietness. 

Dr.  Hendrick — I  approve  of  the  report  most  cordially  I 
shall  vote  for  it;  I  believe  it  to  be  perfectly  correct;  I 
endorse  it. 

Dr.  Pryor — I  concur  with  Gov.  Patton.  Though  your  Book 
has  no  rule  upon  the  subject,  I  doubt  the  parliamentary  usage 
of  committing  the  report  of  a  large  committee  to  a  small  com- 
mittee. But  I  do  not  see  what  is  to  be  gained  by  a  recommittal. 
I  do  not  know  that  the  worthy  brother  over  the  way  (Dr.  Hen- 
drick) has  had  any  conference  with  the  other  parties.  I 
appreciate  the  motive  which  prompts  the  action  on  the  part  of 
that  brother ;  but  if  it  is  the  purpose  that  this  Committee  shall 
report  to  the  next  Assembly,  what  is  to  become  of  the  report 
now  before  you?  Is  it  to  lie  over  until  the  next  Assembly? 
This  report,  I  conceive,  covers  the  whole  ground  that  calls  for 
action.  This  body  knows  nothing  officially  of  any  controversy 
between  individuals  here.  A  paper  was  presented  to  this 
Assembly  representing  that  certain  charges  or  allegations  had 


518 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


either  been  specifically  brought  or  insinuated  in  relation  to 
certain  officers  of  this  body.  Those  officers  in  a  respectful 
paper  asked  for  an  investigation  into  these  allegations;  the 
matter  was  referred  to  a  Special  Committee;  that  Committee 
made  an  elaborate  report.  That  Committee,  I  have  no  doubt, 
has  acted  as  faithfully  as  any  other  Committee  to  which  you 
could  refer  this  matter,  and  I  doubt  not  with  due  regard  to  the 
feelings  and  reputation  of  all  persons  connected  with  this 
unpleasant  affair.  Nothing  is  to  be  gained  by  recommitting. 
The  report  covers  the  whole  ground.  It  entirely  vindicates 
these  brethren.  Nothing  more  is  called  for.  It  ought  to  be 
satisfactory  to  these  brethren,  and  to  everybody.  There  may 
be  a  brother  who  will  want  to  protest ;  he  will  have  the  right  to 
do  so. 

Mr.  J.  C.  Baker — I  desire  to  offer  an  amendment.  I  think 
we  are  in  great  danger  of  doing  injustice  to  a  member  of  this 
Assembly  by  adopting  that  report  in  toto.  I  am  willing  to 
adopt  it,  as  far  as  it  confines  itself  to  the  matter  referred  to  the 
Committee.  No  one  is  farther  than  I  am  from  charging  that 
or  any  Committee  of  the  Church  with  improper  management. 
I  am  willing,  therefore,  to  endorse  every  letter  of  the  report  so 
far  as  it  is  an  endorsement  of  the  management  of  the  funds  of 
the  Church ;  but  when  it  goes  beyond  that,  it  has  gone  beyond 
the  record,  in  virtually  charging  Brother  Cater  with  conduct 
which  presents  him  before  this  Assembly  and  the  Church  in  an 
unenviable  light.  We  ought  not  to  sustain  them  in  that.  I 
move,  therefore,  that  the  report  be  amended  by  striking  out  the 
latter  clause,  in  which  the  Committee  undertake  virtually  to 
censure  his  conduct. 

After  some  difficulty  as  to  points  of  order,  Dr.  Hendrick's 
motion  to  commit  was  laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  Baker — I  will  read  the  two  clauses  that  I  desire  stricken 
out : 

"2.  That  this  Assembly  condemns  in  toto  all  such  complaints 
and  insinuations  as  may  have  been  made  against  these  brethren, 
who  have  been  so  faithful  and  untiring  in  their  official  duties, 
as  alike  unjust  to  them  and  injurious  to  the  welfare  of  the 
Church. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


519 


"3.  That  the  Assembly,  while  fully  admitting  the  right  of 
free  discussion  of  its  own  acts  and  deliverances,  as  well  as  the 
official  conduct  of  all  its  officers,  does  hereby  most  earnestly 
caution  the  editors  of  our  religious  journals,  as  well  as  their 
contributors,  against  the  publication  of  articles  reflecting  thus 
publicly  on  the  conduct  of  those  who  are  acting  as  its  servants, 
because  of  the  injury  which  might  be  inflicted  upon  them  per- 
sonally, and  upon  the  Church  generally;  and  that  it  reminds 
and  urges  on  all  who  have  charges  or  complaints  to  make, 
which,  if  true,  would  result  in  the  removal  of  those  complained 
of,  that  the  proper  place  for  making  such  charges  or  complaints 
is  on  the  floor  of  the  Assembly." 

Some  of  this  I  approve,  but  in  order  to  get  at  what  I  do  not 
approve,  I  move  that  the  whole  of  these  two  articles  be  stricken 
out. 

Dr.  Hiu., — I  agree  with  the  brother  that  the  part  he  desires 
to  have  stricken  out  does  not  meet  the  views  of  a  number  of 
members.  We  have  compared  our  views,  and  are  unwilling  to 
vote  for  some  portions  of  the  report.  I  am  extremely  desirous 
to  tender  all  the  courtesy  and  sympathy  of  this  body  in  a  united 
vote  to  the  officers  of  our  two  Committees.  Having  been  an 
officer  of  the  old  Assembly  for  fifteen  years,  I  understand  per- 
fectly the  difficulties  of  the  position  which  one  of  these  brethren 
occupies,  I  may  say  both  of  them.  I  sympathise  with  them  in 
their  difficulties.  No  position  is  more  trying  than  theirs.  It 
would  be  the  most  delightful  position  in  the  world  to  me  to  be 
at  the  head  of  the  Sustentation  Committee,  if  the  Church  would 
give  me  enough  money  to  enable  me  to  give  what  he  ought  to 
have  to  every  laborer  in  the  cause  of  Christ.  But  when  you 
give  the  man  at  the  head  of  this  Committee  only  half  enough, 
and  require  him  to  meet  all  the  demands,  it  is  like  distributing 
bread  to  a  family  of  children,  when  you  have  bread  sufficient 
for  only  one  child.  I  make  these  remarks  because  I  wish  the 
Assembly  to  feel  that  I  sympathise  to  the  very  liveliest  extent 
with  these  excellent  brethren  in  the  difficulties  of  their  position. 
I  have  no  sort  of  sympathy  with  this  carping  and  criticising 
spirit  which  sometimes  springs  up.  I  had  to  bear  it  for  a 
great  many  years.  I  think  God  gave  me  grace,  if  these  brethren 
will  allow  me  to  say  so,  to  bear  it  with  a  little  more  patience 


520 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


and  meekness  than  they  have.  I  did  not  get  mad,  sir ;  but  I 
was  worried,  fretted,  and  vexed,  often.  There  never  was  a 
Committee  or  Board  that  had  the  power  which  this  Sustentation 
Committee  have,  that  was  not  carped  at.  Any  man  who  takes 
that  position  with  the  idea  that  he  can  deny  men  here  and  there 
that  which  they  feel  to  be  their  due,  and  give  it  to  other  men 
whom  they  think  not  as  worthy  of  it,  without  being  found  fault 
with,  will  be  mistaken.    The  thing  is  an  utter  impossibility. 

I  move  to  strike  out  the  whole  report,  and  substitute  this 
paper  in  the  place  of  it : 

"The  General  Assembly  having  appointed  a  Committee  to 
examine  into  the  official  conduct  of  its  Secretary  and  Treasurer 
of  the  Committees  of  Foreign  Missions  and  Sustentation,  and 
said  Committee  having  had  all  the  books  and  accounts  of  those 
Committees  before  them,  feels  constrained  to  express  its 
entire  confidence  in  the  perfect  honesty  and  integrity  of  said 
officers,  and  their  general  wisdom  and  skill  in  the  management 
of  the  sacred  funds  intrusted  to  their  care.  These  officers  have 
an  arduous  and  difficult  work  to  discharge,  and  are  liable  to  fall 
into  errors.  Whilst,  therefore,  the  Assembly  would  recognise 
the  right  of  all  the  lower  courts  and  ministers,  efders,  and 
others,  freely  and  in  a  proper  spirit  of  love  to  canvass  those 
errors,  it  would  recommend  to  all  such  to  do  it  in  such  a  way 
as  not  to  shake  the  confidence  of  the  churches  in  them,  and  thus 
inflict  an  injury  upon  the  causes  which  they  represent.  The 
Assembly  would  at  the  same  time  express  such  confidence  in 
these  officers  that  they  feel  assured  that  any  errors  or  mistakes 
into  which  they  may  fall,  will  be  promptly  corrected  when  prop- 
erly pointed  out." 

I  do  not  wish  to  consume  more  of  the  time  of  the  Assembly. 
There  are  some  of  the  resolutions  which  a  pretty  large  number 
will  not  vote  for.  A  divided  vote,  I  fear,  will  not  accomplish 
what  we  desire — to  inspire  confidence  throughout  the  Church 
in  the  officers  of  these  two  Committees.  There  is  not  in  this 
substitute  everything  that  I  would  like  to  see  in  it,  either  in 
regard  to  those  officers  or  the  worthy  brother  who  is  found 
fault  with;  but  I  have  studied  to  save  the  feelings  of  the 
brother,  who  will  certainly  be  very  strongly  condemned.  And 
there  will  also  be,  if  you  adopt  Gov.  Patton's  report,  a  squinting 


HIS  TEACHINGS, 


521 


at  the  idea  (and  it  will  make  that  impression  on  the  Church,) 
that  the  General  Assembly  is  not  willing  to  have  the  conduct  of 
its  officers  fully  canvassed.  I  want  to  save  that  point.  I 
know  those  brethren  are  willing  to  have  their  conduct  can- 
vassed. The  very  moment  you  make  the  impression  upon  the 
Church  that  anything  is  covered  up  which  the  Assembly  will 
not  let  out,  you  destroy  the  cords  of  confidence  binding  these 
causes  to  the  hearts  of  God's  people. 

I  am  free  to  say  that  my  excellent  brother  (Mr.  Cater)  has 
found  fault,  not  in  the  spirit  at  least  in  which  I  would  have 
found  fault.  He  has  gone  too  far  in  his  censure,  for  I  have 
read  the  articles  since  I  came  here.  I  may  state  a  fact,  which 
may  be  news  to  this  Assembly,  in  order  that  they  may  under- 
stand my  position.  A  part  of  the  conduct  of  the  officers  of  the 
Foreign  Missions  Committee  was  very  strongly  censured  by  my 
Presbytery  and  Synod.  I  will  not  go  into  the  merits  of  the 
case ;  the  facts  of  the  case  are  that  we  supposed  that  the  young 
brethren  sent  out  to  China,  members  of  our  Presbytery,  were 
not  supplied  with  funds  so  as  to  meet  their  exigencies  as 
promptly  as  they  ought.  At  the  meeting  of  our  Presbytery,  a 
resolution  was  offered  by  one  of  the  most  prominent  members, 
to  censure  this  Committee,  and  to  have  it  published.  I  said 
that  my  confidence  in  these  brethren  was  so  great,  that  I 
believed  there  must  be  some  explanation  of  their  conduct  which 
was  not  before  us,  and  I  offered  a  resolution  that  a  committee 
of  correspondence  be  established  to  seek  an  explanation.  I  was 
appointed  Chairman  of  that  Committee,  and  wrote  a  letter.  It 
is  a  very  amusing  circumstance  that  as  "mild  a  mannered  man" 
as  I  am,  and  as  strong  a  "mannered  man"  as  my  brother  Robin- 
son is,  he  said  the  letter  was  too  severe !  [Laughter.]  I  never 
sent  it.  In  the  meantime  the  Synod  met.  Another  resolution 
was  there  offered  censuring  the  Committee  for  their  delay.  I 
offered  the  same  resolution,  and  was  appointed  chairman  of  a 
committee  to  correspond.  Well,  I  heard  the  explanation  of  the 
worthy  brother ;  and  whilst  it  explained  a  great  many  things,  it 
did  not  (I  have  nothing  to  keep  back)  fully  meet  the  difficulties 
in  the  minds  of  the  brethren  then,  I  must  say.  And  this  is  the 
reason  why  I  will  vote  against  one  of  the  resolutions :  it  is  that 
the  multiplied  engagements  of  the  officers  of  that  Committee 


522 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


prevented  them  from  giving  that  prompt  attention  which  they 
ought  to  have  given.  I  had  the  most  perfect  confidence  in  the 
integrity  and  reliability  of  both  of  them ;  my  confidence  was  not 
shaken  for  one  moment;  but  I  excused  one  of  them  on  the 
ground  that  he  had  "too  many  irons  in  the  fire" — so  many  occu- 
pations that  he  did  not  give  the  required  attention  to  these 
young  brethren.  That  is  the  opinion  of  a  large  number  of  the 
brethren  in  Kentucky.  I  believe  their  suffering  was  partly  the 
fault  of  the  young  brethren ;  it  was  partly  the  fault  of  the 
missionary  who  has  since  departed;  but  it  did  seem  to  me  (I 
say  it  here  as  I  have  said  it  to  those  brethren  themselves)  that 
they  ought  to  have  had  a  sufficient  knowledge  of  the  mode  of 
transmitting  funds,  to  have  enabled  the  missionaries  to  supply 
their  wants.  Why,  these  brethren  were  compelled  to  borrow 
money  for  six  or  eight  months  from  the  missionaries  of  the 
Northern  Board! 

Dr.  J.  R.  Wilson — I  submit  that  this  is  altogether  out  of 
order. 

Dr.  Woodrow — I  beg  that  he  will  have  permission  to  go  on. 

Dr.  Wilson — I  know  that  all  these  things  can  be  explained, 
but  this  publicity  of  matters  to  go  abroad  as  insinuations  is  not 
in  order. 

Dr.  Hill — I  am  giving  the  reason  why  I  want  a  substitute 
for  the  report. 

The  Moderator — It  is  desired  by  all  persons  who  feel  a 
peculiar  personal  interest  in  this  matter,  that  the  brother  should 
take  just  as  wide  a  scope  as  he  pleases. 

Dr.  Hill — As  a  reason  why  I  offer  the  substitute,  I  will  read 
this: 

"2.  It  is  insinuated  that  the  causes  of  Sustentation  and  For- 
eign Missions  are  suffering  through  mismanagement  and  neglect 
of  the  Secretary  and  Treasurer  because  of  the  multiplicity  of 
their  engagements. 

"In  the  judgment  of  your  Committee,  and  after  an  examina- 
tion of  the  facts  as  furnished  in  the  documents  before  us,  there 
is  no  evidence  that  these  interests  of  the  Church  are  suffering 
in  any  degree  by  a  multiplicity  of  their  appointments." 

I  cannot  vote  for  that. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


523 


Dr.  Wilson — One  moment  to  explain  myself.  I  have  great 
respect  for  Dr.  Hill  and  those  brethren  who  think  with  him  in 
Kentucky;  and  it  was  no  part  of  my  object  to  close  the  dis- 
cussion, much  less  to  prevent  the  bringing  out  of  any  facts. 
But  my  point  was  this :  That  when  any  new  matter  is  touched 
upon,  let  it  be  with  the  finger  of  business  accuracy,  and  let  an 
exact  statement  be  made  as  to  the  point  of  difficulty,  and  not  a 
broad  general  statement  that  cannot  be  overtaken  by  specifica- 
tions. 

Dr.  Hill — I  was  giving  the  reason  why  I  could  not  vote  for 
that  resolution.  I  will  repeat  that  I  do  believe  those  brethren 
are  as  honest,  as  honorable,  high-minded,  and  reliable  as  any  in 
the  Church ;  but  I  cannot  vote  that  I  think  no  interests  are 
suffering.  I  have  seen  Dr.  Woodrow's  explanation  in  print, 
and  they  have  been  made  to  other  brethren,  and  we  still  felt 
there  was  neglect. 

The  only  other  remark  I  have  to  make  is  this :  You,  sir, 
know  your  old  friend,  Dr.  Robert  J.  Breckinridge.  After  I 
became  editor  in  Kentucky,  I  remarked  to  him  on  a  certain 
occasion,  "Well,  Dr.  B.,  you  seem  to  me  to  be  a  little  more 
polite  of  late  than  you  used  to  be."  "Well,  sir,"  said  he,  "you 
have  got  the  printing  type  in  your  hands ;  I  know  the  power  of 
the  press,  and  I  do  not  want  to  get  into  a  quarrel  with  you." 
[Laughter.]  There  was  a  good  deal  of  wisdom  in  that.  I 
want  the  power  of  the  press  enlisted  on  the  side  of  Foreign 
Missions  and  Sustentation — to  give  confidence  and  stability  to 
the  position  of  these  excellent  brethren.  You  are  stepping 
aside,  as  I  understand  it,  to  condemn  the  press  for  a  thing 
which  they  will  tell  you,  if  I  understand  the  spirit  of  editors, 
does  not  belong  to  this  Assembly  to  censure.  They  are  inde- 
pendent; they  are  not  responsible  to  you.  I  am  afraid,  if  you 
censure  them,  that  they  on  the  other  hand  will  not  help  to 
sustain  these  brethren  in  the  minds  of  the  Christian  public. 
The  best  way  is  to  bring  all  these  facts  out.  I  wish  to  hear  Dr. 
W7oodrow.  I  know  what  his  explanation  is,  but  I  wish  the 
Assembly  to  hear  it,  because  I  have  given  before  the  Assembly 
the  reasons  why  I  cannot  support  the  resolutions.  I  do  not  say 
that  Brother  Cater  has  done  right.  I  do  not  sustain  him  in 
many  things  that  he  has  written ;  but  he  had  the  right  to  criti- 


524 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


cise,  and  though  he  may  not  have  done  it  properly,  you  must 
not  cut  off  inquiry.  I  want  everybody  to  know  that  I  have 
perfect  confidence  in  these  brethren.  I  say  here  in  the  last  part 
of  my  paper  that  if  there  is  anything  wrong  in  their  conduct,  I 
have  such  confidence  in  them  that  I  believe  that  when  the  wrong 
is  pointed  out  they  will  correct  it.  We  think  they  have  erred  in 
some  points  in  the  past,  but  we  have  perfect  confidence  for  the 
future.  As  to  the  official  conduct  of  my  beloved  brother  Wil- 
son, I  do  not  think  he  was  to  blame ;  I  think  the  blame  was  on 
the  other  party,  but  I  have  perfect  confidence  in  Dr.  Woodrow. 
I  believe  he  will  do  his  duty  in  regard  to  the  future;  I  do  not 
believe  he  has  done  his  duty  in  the  past.  He  has  too  much  on 
his  hands  to  do  it  all  faithfully. 

Mr.  J.  C.  BakER — In  order  to  save  the  time  of  the  Assembly, 
and  come  to  a  speedy  vote,  I  will  withdraw  my  amendment. 

Dr.  J.  Leighton  Wilson — When  this  whole  question  is 
before  the  Assembly  for  statements,  I  will  give  precedence  to 
my  brother  Woodrow.  Mr.  Cater  stated  here  yesterday  that  he 
had  statements  to  make,  and  that  he  would  substantiate  those 
charges.  When  he  has  substantiated  those  charges,  it  will  then 
be  time  for  us  to  answer  him. 

Mr.  Cater — My  excellent  brother  Wilson  has  entirely  mis- 
understood what  I  said.  I  did  not  intend  to  make  that 
impression.  There  is  but  a  single  point  that  I  am  aiming  at, 
and  that  is  the  report  of  the  Committee.  It  is  the  first  four 
items  in  it  which  do  accuse  me  before  the  world  of  doing  that 
which  I  utterly  deny  ever  having  done.  I  have  just  as  high  a 
confidence  in  Dr.  Wilson's  and  Dr.  Woodrow's  honesty  as  any 
man.  I  disclaimed  in  my  articles,  time  and  again,  any  intention 
of  casting  any  reflection  upon  them  personally  at  all.  I  have 
not  accused  any  party  of  crime.  I  distinctly  disavowed  it. 
My  article  in  reply  to  Dr.  Adger,  in  its  first  and  in  its  closing 
clause,  does  certainly  to  my  mind  relieve  everything  of  that 
kind.  I  have  my  statement  to  make;  I  wish  to  defend  myself 
against  those  four  points,  and  only  those.  I  am  perfectly  will- 
ing for  the  Assembly  to  pass  any  resolutions  whatsoever 
endorsing  those  brethren  in  the  strongest  manner  possible,  but 
I  want  simply  that  they  let  me  alone.  That  is  all  that  I  ask. 
I  do  not  wish  to  stand  in  a  false  light  before  the  world  and  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS.  525 

Church.  That  Committee  have  entirely  misapprehended  their 
duty  as  far  as  I  can  see  in  that  report,  and  when  I  make  my 
speech,  I  want  to  make  it  upon  these  four  items. 

Dr.  Pryor — I  rise  to  express  the  hope  that  whilst  these 
statements  of  Brother  Hill,  emanating  as  they  do  from  the 
Synod  of  Kentucky,  are  fresh  before  us,  Brother  Woodrow  will 
now  make  the  explanation  he  has  to  make  in  relation  to  them. 
I  want  them  met  just  now. 

Dr.  Woodrow — Let  me  begin  by  thanking  you  with  all  my 
heart  for  the  courtesy  you  have  extended  to  me  in  inviting  me 
to  appear  before  you,  and  to  make  a  full  statement  of  my 
official  conduct,  during  not  only  the  past  year,  but  the  former 
years  in  which  I  have  been  serving  you.  It  is  no  small  honor  to 
me  to  be  so  invited.  This  General  Assembly  is  not  merely  a 
company  of  cultivated  Christian  gentlemen;  it  is  not  merely  a 
company  of  those  who  have  devoted  themselves  to  the  upbuild- 
ing of  the  cause  of  Christ ;  but  it  is  the  embodiment  of  that  part 
of  the  Church  of  Christ  which  is  my  all.  In  standing  before 
you  to  give  an  account  of  my  acts,  I  am  not  standing  simply 
before  this  audience,  but  before  the  whole  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States. 

And  yet  it  is  strange,  Moderator,  that  I  should  be  standing 
before  you  as  I  now  do.  I  am  here  to  defend  myself — against 
charges,  it  is  said,  not  intended  to  affect  my  character ;  charges 
made  by  one  "friend"  against  another — mere  inquiries  into  the 
official  conduct  of  one  to  whom  you  have  so  largely  intrusted 
the  interests  of  the  Church.  We  shall  presently  see  the  char- 
acter of  these  inquiries.  I  will  not  now  describe  them.  To 
quote  partially  from  one  of  them,  I  will  let  facts  "tell  their 
own  tale." 

I  do  not  deny  your  right  to  inquire  into  my  conduct.  I  have 
courted  investigation  into  everything  that  I  have  ever  done, 
whether  for  the  Church  or  any  other  body  of  men.  I  desire 
that  the  light  that  proceeds  from  the  eternal  Source  of  all  truth 
shall  be  shed  upon  the  minutest  actions  of  my  life,  and  that  all 
may  be  spread  here  before  you.  I  am  not  afraid  of  meeting  it. 
But  while  I  admit  this  right  of  the  Church,  and  insist  upon  its 
exercise,  I  at  the  same  time  claim  that  my  reputation  for  integ- 
rity and  honesty  shall  either  be  vindicated,  so  far  as  I  have  been 


526 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


acting  as  your  servant ;  or  that  I  shall  be  condemned,  cast  forth 
as  a  vagabond,  with  a  mark  upon  my  brow  more  infamous  than 
the  mark  upon  the  brow  of  Cain,  to  wander  throughout  the 
earth.  My  brother  Hill  has  said  that  we  must  not  be  too  sensi- 
tive, too  thin-skinned.  Moderator,  I  have  been  cultivating  the 
lack  of  sensitiveness — thickness  of  skin — for  "lo!  these  many 
years."  I  would  not  be  sensitive  with  regard  to  any  criticism 
of  my  conduct  in  any  direction.  But  when  you  touch  that 
which  is  dear  to  me  as  virtue  to  a  woman,  I  cannot  but  be  sensi- 
tive. If  but  a  small  portion  of  the  charges  uttered  and 
published  far  and  wide  over  this  land,  and  throughout  this 
Church,  be  true,  I  am  so  degraded  that  you  ought,  if  you  saw 
me  in  the  street,  to  pass  me  by  as  too  polluted  to  be  noticed, 
except  to  seek  to  rescue  me  from  eternal  degradation. 

But  let  me  now  show  you  what  some  of  these  charges  are. 
They  are  very  numerous ;  yet  I  will  try  to  condense  as  far  as 
possible.  I  wish  you  to  remember  that  they  are  uttered  by  a 
member  of  this  Assembly,  and  have  been  published  by  the  thou- 
sand copies  over  the  land  and  throughout  the  Church ;  and  then 
say  whether  or  not  I  am  too  sensitive  in  taking  notice  of  them. 

I  read  first  from  the  Christian  Observer  and  Free  Christian 
Commonwealth — a  journal,  as  you  all  know,  published  in  the 
city  of  Louisville  by  two  ministers  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
in  the  United  States — an  article  signed  by  the  initials  "N.  R.," 
in  the  issue  for  February  8,  1871.  It  is  stated  in  this :  "It  is 
inexpedient,  unwise,  and  contrary  to  the  genius  of  Presby- 
terianism,  to  give  so  much  money  and  office  power  into  the 
hands  of  a  few  men.  It  impairs  the  parity  of  the  ministry — 
creates  a  dominant  influence  dangerous  to  godliness  and  sound 
doctrine.  Take,  for  example,  the  Committee  of  Sustentation ; 
four  of  the  Committee  are  professors  in  the  Seminary  at 
Columbia — one  of  those  four  is  also  a  director  of  the  Semi- 
nary" (a  pardonable  error),  "so,  also,  are  two  others  of  the 
Committee  directors — they  are  all  of  them,  also,  members  of  the 
Committee  of  Foreign  Missions — the  officers  of  one  being 
officers  of  the  other.  The  Committee  of  Sustentation  also 
manage  the  fund  for  the  Relief  of  Disabled  Ministers  and  the 
Widows  and  Orphans  of  Deceased  Ministers ;  so  also  they  are 
appointed  to  manage  the  new  assurance  scheme !    One  of  this 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


527 


Committee,  besides  being  now  a  professor  in  the  Seminary,  is 
also  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Directors,  members  of  this 
Committee  are  the  editors  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Review, 
and  one  of  them  is  editor  of  the  Southern-  Presbyterian;  these 
last  two  are  private  enterprises,  and  are  only  mentioned  in  this 
connexion  because  of  their  power  to  influence  the  Church, 
Now,  combine  those  items  of  power,  and  any  well  informed 
man  will  see  that  that  body  of  men  (however  good  they  may 
be)  wield  a  power  that  may  eventually  crush  out  liberty  of 
thought  and  freedom  of  speech  in  the  Presbyterian  Church." 

So  far,  this  might  be  regarded  as  a  discussion  of  what  may 
be  done;  but  observe  what  follows.  Such  general  discussion 
is  no  part  of  the  writer's  object ;  therefore,  to  leave  no  room  for 
doubt  as  to  his  design,  to  make  the  application  unmistakable, 
he  proceeds :  "Of  the  disposition  in  that  direction,  see  their 
remarks  about  the  Committee  of  Publication  having  issued  the 
Ecclesiastical  Catechism  of  Dr.  Smyth  of  Charleston."  It  is 
not  that  such  power  may  produce  such  effects  as  have  been 
described — that  it  may  create  "a  dominant  influence  dangerous 
to  godliness  and  sound  doctrine  .  .  .  and  may  eventually 
crush  out  liberty  of  thought  and  freedom  of  speech" ;  but  the 
writer  goes  on  to  point  out  "their  disposition  in  that  direction," 
and  therefore  concludes :  "It  is  altogether  expedient  to  disinte- 
grate that  power." 

Mr.  Cater — Will  you  allow  me  to  say  to  Dr.  Woodrow  that 
we  are  talking  here  about  his  official  character,  and  this  does  not 
refer  to  that. 

The  Moderator — Unless  Dr.  Woodrow  gives  the  floor,  the 
Chair  cannot  give  it. 

Dr.  Woodrow — I  will  cheerfully  give  the  floor  for  any  expla- 
nations which  may  be  asked ;  but  I  appeal  to  the  Assembly  that 
my  mouth  may  not  be  stopped  in  answering  these  charges  here 
made. 

Xow,  I  submit  that  I  have  been  referred  to  again  and  again  in 
this  enumeration  ;  for  I  am  one  of  the  editors  of  the  Southern 
Presbyterian  Review,  I  am  the  editor  of  the  Southern  Presby- 
terian, I  have  many  other  small  and  great  "irons  in  the  lire." 
All  that  is  true.  I  do  not  deny  it.  I  say,  therefore,  that  this 
is  a  charge  as  direct  as  could  be  brought  of  my  "'disposition"  in 


528 


DR.  J  AMDS  WOODROW. 


all  the  evil  directions  enumerated  in  the  paragraph  I  have  just 
read. 

Now,  let  me  read  that  which  comes  from  a  "friend,"  from 
one  who,  in  a  subsequent  article,  professes  "most  cordial  friend- 
ship for  all  those  members  of  the  Committee  with  whom  he  is 
personally  acquainted."  I  suppose  I  am  included  in  that  num- 
ber ;  for  I  remember  that  at  the  General  Assembly  in  Memphis 
a  gentleman  presented  himself  to  me,  and  introduced  himself 
as  "Mr.  Cater" ;  and  after  a  moment's  conversation,  we  parted. 
I  never  saw  him  before ;  I  have  never  seen  him  since ;  but  I 
presume  this  was  an  acquaintance  which  led  to  my  share  of  the 
claim  of  "cordial  friendship"  which  he  makes  for  "those  mem- 
bers of  the  Committee  with  whom  he  was  personally  acqainted." 

A  reason  is  given  next  for  the  removal  of  the  Committee  in 
this  language:  "These  committees  ought  now  to  be  removed, 
because  the  officers  are  immersed  in  other  business — some 
public  and  some  private.  For  example,  the  Secretary  of  Sus- 
tentation  is  also  the  Secretary  of  two  others  of  the  charity 
funds  of  the  Church,  and  will  be  a  chief  actor  in  the  assurance 
scheme,  if  ever  it  is  inaugurated,  and  we  hear  that  he  is  at  the 
head  of  a  large  female  school  at  Mayesville,  and  resides  fifty 
or  more  miles  from  Columbia."  Then  follows  another  enumer- 
ation of  my  employments,  concluding  with:  "And  has  various 
other  small  irons  in  the  fire.  Surely  it  is  now  expedient,  yea, 
merciful,  to  relieve  those  beloved  men,  who  seem  so  anxiously 
willing  to  'tote'  everything."  "Expedient,  yea,  merciful,  to 
relieve  those  beloved  men" — why  ?  "Because  they  are  immersed 
in  other  business."  If  so  immersed,  they  must  be  unfaithful  in 
the  discharge  of  the  duties  you  have  committed  to  them. 

He  adds:  "These  benevolent  schemes  of  the  Church,  under 
their  management,  are  in  very  straitened  circumstances."  Well, 
that  is  true.  Now,  what  is  the  inference  "N.  R."  draws  from 
this  fact?  "It  is  expedient  to  try  a  change!"  Then  he  pro- 
ceeds to  say :  "The  Committees  of  Foreign  Missions  and  Susten- 
tation  .  .  .  could  do  their  business  without  unknown  and 
irresponsible  clerks."  Moderator,  the  Assembly  at  Baltimore 
authorised  the  appointment  of  a  clerical  force,  if  necessary,  to 
carry  on  the  business  efficiently.  Would  you  have  the  clerks 
appointed  by  the  Assembly?    Then  appoint  them.    But  you 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


529 


gave  us  the  authority  to  appoint  them,  and  we  did  so.  And  yet 
"unknown  and  irresponsible  clerks''  is  the  term  here  employed ! 

"Such  abundant  expenditure  will  always  cause  human  nature 
to  judge  that  a  change  is  very  inexpedient."  We  love  the 
loaves  and  the  fishes  too  well!  Is  not  that  what  is  insinuated? 
To  conclude  respecting  this  first  article,  I  submit  that  it  brings 
the  direct  charge  that  I  at  least  have  attempted  to  use  the  power 
wdiich  has  accumulated  in  my  hands  (according  to  the  asser- 
tion) in  a  direction  that  is  "dangerous  to  godliness  and  sound 
doctrine,''  and  that  tends  "'to  crush  out  liberty  of  thought  and 
freedom  of  speech  in  the  Presbyterian  Church"  ;  and  that  I  have 
neglected  what  you  have  given  me  to  do  because  "immersed  in 
other  business" ;  to  say  nothing  of  the  intimation  in  the  sentence 
— "Such  abundant  expenditure  will  always  cause  human  nature 
to  judge  that  a  change  is  inexpedient." 

I  will  not  go  over  in  detail  all  the  charges.  I  simply  call 
your  attention  to  the  fact,  without  reading  what  is  there  said, 
that  in  the  issue  of  May  3,  1871,  there  is  a  reiteration  of  the 
various  charges  in  the  editorial  columns  of  the  Christian 
Observer,  put  in  the  mouths  of  others.  Editors  know  how  to 
do  that  thing.  I  will  pass  on,  however,  to  that  to  which  I 
referred  as  of  sufficient  importance,  if  true,  to  drive  me  in  dis- 
grace from  your  presence. 

It  so  happens  that  replies  were  made  to  some  of  these  articles 
under  examination.  I  was  consulted  as  to  whether  I  was 
myself  going  to  make  a  reply.  "I  make  a  reply  In  a  paper 
which  /  control  and  which  /  edit !  A  reply  to  charges  against 
my  integrity !"  No,  Moderator !  Much  as  I  may  use  the 
types,  I  do  not  vindicate  my  character  in  newspaper  articles. 
If  it  is  assailed,  as  it  has  been,  I  answer  here  in  the  presence  of 
Christ  and  his  appointed  representatives,  before  this  General 
Assembly ;  and  there  alone  do  I  consent  to  appear.  This  is  the 
only  tribunal  before  which  one  of  your  officers  can  reply  to 
such  charges.  But  articles  were  published  vindicating  the 
action  of  the  Committee.  To  one  of  these  a  reply  is  made  in 
the  same  journal  dated  April  5,  1871.  It  is  signed  "N.  R.,  or 
Edwin  Cater" — an  additional  name.  "As  *'G.  W.'  demands 
'more  explicit'  objections  to  the  work  of  the  Committees,  'X. 
R.'  will  be  excused  if  he  makes  the  investigation.    Let  it  be 


34— v? 


530 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


distinctly  understood  that  he  does  not  charge  crime  upon  any 
one,  while  he  plainly  examines  the  Reports  of  the  Committees 
made  to  the  Assembly  of  May,  1870.  Figures  tell  their  own 
tale.  On  page  547,  printed  Minutes  of  Assembly,  the  Secretary 
states : 

"  'In  consequence  of  the  comparatively  limited  means  placed 
at  the  disposal  of  the  Committee,  very  little  has  been  done  in 
the  way  of  aiding  in  church  erection.  Eight  congregations 
have  received  assistance,  but  amounting  in  the  aggregate  to 
something  less  than  $1,000.' 

"But  the  corresponding  item  in  the  Treasurer's  report  is 
$2,700,  a  difference  of  $1,700  or  more.  Then  a  bond  reported 
in  the  Foreign  Mission  Treasury  for  1869  has  disappeared." 

"He  does  not  charge  crime."  "Figures  tell  their  own  tale". 
I  will  not  now  comment  upon  this ;  but  let  me  call  your  atten- 
tion in  the  last  place,  so  far  as  this  examination  goes,  to  the 
following.  After  an  enumeration  of  the  various  matters  of 
expense  connected  with  Foreign  Missions,  etc.,  "N.  R.,  or 
Edwin  Cater",  concludes : 

"Now  Prof.  Woodrow  was  already  employed  by  the  Church 
for  the  whole  of  his  time  in  one  direction,  and  she  pays  him 
$3,000  for  it." 

It  had  just  been  intimated  that  I  was  receiving  a  salary  as 
Treasurer  of  one  thing,  and  another  as  Treasurer  of  another; 
and  who  knows  how  many  salaries  for  the  various  other  "small 
irons"  that  I  had  in  the  fire  ?  And  yet  I  had  sold  "the  whole  of 
my  time"  to  the  Church  for  three  thousand  dollars!  It  has 
been  said  that  there  is  no  charge  here — only  an  inquiry.  Now, 
what  would  you  think  if  I  were  to  say  of  a  clerk  that  I  had 
employed  him  for  the  whole  of  his  time  for  $600,  and  then  that 
he  was  working  for  others  in  my  time,  and  getting  paid  for  it? 
Would  that  be  a  charge?  Would  that  affect  his  integrity? 
Would  that  affect  his  honesty?  Would  that  be  a  perfectly 
legitimate  transaction?  I  see  merchants  and  men  of  business 
around  me — what  would  they  think  of  one  who  was  paid  by 
them  for  the  whole  of  his  time,  and  then  sold  some  portions  of 
it  for  one  sum  of  money  and  another?  Would  swindling  be 
too  strong  an  expression?  Would  embezzlement?  Whatever 
word  there  is  that  expresses  the  taking  of  money  that  does  not 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


531 


belong  to  you — I  care  not  what  it  is — that  would  be  the  right 
word.  It  is  taking  money  that  does  not  belong  to  me  that  I  am 
charged  with.  But  yet  I  am  told  I  am  too  sensitive  in  wishing 
this  Assembly  to  investigate  the  matter  to  see  whether  or  not 
it  is  true !  I  am  charged  with  taking  your  property  and  selling 
it,  and  appropriating  the  proceeds  to  my  own  use.  The  whole 
of  my  time  is  your  property,  if  the  assertion  in  this  article  is 
true.  Now,  I  do  get  money  for  the  use  of  my  time  outside  of 
what  you  pay  me,  and  I  get  a  great  deal  of  it.  Therefore  I 
have  stolen  your  time !  I  have  swindled  you  out  of  it,  if  this 
allegation  is  true. 

And  then,  what  is  it  that  "figures  are  to  tell"  when  they  "tell 
their  own  tale"?  What  is  meant  by  this — that  "a  bond 
reported  in  the  Foreign  Mission  Treasury  for  1869  has  disap- 
peared"? Moderator,  if  money  is  put  into  my  hands,  and  it 
disappears  in  any  way — I  care  not  how — I  am,  and  ought  to  be, 
regarded  as  having  appropriated  it  to  my  own  use.  Money 
does  not  disappear  from  one's  hands  accidentally.  Such  things 
never  occur.  Thus  I  have  here,  by  reference  to  these  last  two 
points,  established  that  charges  have  been  brought  against  me, 
which,  if  true,  ought  to  blast  my  character  forever. 

But  I  have  been  told  by  brethren  on  many  hands,  that  nobody 
believes  any  charge  of  dishonesty  against  me.  I  am  firmly 
persuaded  that  no  one  who  knows  me  can  believe  it.  I  do  not 
believe  that  any  one  credits  any  charge  of  dishonesty  or  unfaith- 
fulness to  any  trust  committed  to  me.  But  these  charges  are 
brought  in  such  a  way  that  I  cannot  afford  to  despise  them. 
They  are  brought,  in  the  first  place,  by  one  who  is  a  member 
of  this  body.  A  member  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  make  charges  that  I 
can  despise  ?  No ;  I  cannot  despise  any  charge  that  is  made  by 
any  one  who  can  sit  in  this  body.  Then,  again,  I  cannot  afford 
to  despise  charges  made  by  one  who  represents  a  Presbytery — 
which  is  involved  in  the  former  statement.  I  cannot  afford  to 
despise  charges  made  by  one  whom  I  hear  spoken  of  as 
"brother,"  "the  excellent  brother,"  and  "to  save  the  feelings  of 
the  brother."  Moderator,  if  any  one  charges  you  with  stealing, 
I  will  not  call  him  brother.  He  is  not  my  brother,  if  he  charges 
you  with  swindling  the  Church  out  of  its  money.    And  yet  "an 


532 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


excellent  brother,"  as  I  hear  him  called  on  all  hands,  has  done 
this  very  thing  to  me.  No;  I  cannot  afford  to  despise  the 
charge.    I  might  give  other  reasons,  but  I  must  hasten  on. 

There  is  still  one  other  reason,  however,  which  I  may  not 
omit.  The  charge  has  not  been  made  in  private.  It  has  been 
circulated  by  thousands  and  thousands  of  copies.  If  there  is 
any  credit  in  bringing  me  as  a  criminal  to  justice,  then  it  is  more 
largely  due  to  those  who  circulated  that  which  has  succeeded  in 
thus  bringing  me  to  justice  than  to  him  who  originated  the 
charges.  If  the  bringing  of  the  charge  is  to  be  praised,  the 
publication  of  it  is  to  be  praised  tenfold  more.  I  need  not,  in 
the  presence  of  so  many  legal  gentlemen,  call  the  attention  of 
the  Assembly  further  to  the  difference  between  the  utterance  of 
a  libel  and  the  publication  of  it.  No,  sir,  (this  is  not  a  matter 
that  I  can  lightly  pass  by;  or  which  I  can  consent  that  this 
Assembly  should  pass  by  without  either  a  condemnation  which 
will  follow  me  with  its  blighting  influence  to  the  grave,  or  such 
a  vindication  as  will  prevent  a- repetition  of  accusations  against 
me,  unless  they  can  be  proved  before  a  competent  court.  As 
was  said  to  me  by  a  venerable  father  in  this  body,  these  charges 
are  such  that  they  must  be  fatal  to  the  peace  of  conscience  of 
him  who  made  ithem  and  those  who  published  them  on  the  one 
hand,  or  myself  on  the  other. 

But  before  going  into  my  vindication,  and  the  consideration  of 
the  question  whether  or  not  I  am  guilty,  let  me  say  that  the 
antecedent  probability  of  such  charges  depends  very  much  upon 
the  character  of  him  who  brings  them.  If  the  peace-loving 
Isaac  attack  one  of  his  fellow-men,  it  may  be  supposed  that 
there  is  good  reason  for  it ;  but  if  Isaac's  brother  make  the 
attack,  there  is  no  such  presumption.  I  submit,  therefore,  that 
it  is  proper  for  me  to  inquire  whether  the  charges  against  me 
have  been  brought  by  the  peace-loving  Isaac  or  by  his  brother. 
But  before  that  question  can  be  considered,  there  is  still  another. 
Have  they  been  brought  by  one  person  or  by  many  ?  Are  they 
fresh  charges?  or  is  this  a  continuation  of  charges  repeated 
year  after  year?  Moderator,  it  is  a  reiteration,  with  slight 
change  of  form,  of  charges  brought  year  after  year.  In  1868, 
I  was  made  the  object  of  that  which  in  some  of  its  aspects  was 
a  similar  attack.    A  writer  in  a  journal  published  in  Mobile, 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


533 


under  the  signature  of  "Decern,"  brought  ito  light  many  alleged 
discrepancies  in  my  accounts,  which  I  was  informed  subse- 
quently by  a  private  letter  from  the  author,  were  "damaging  to 
both  Secretary  and  Treasurer  and  the  cause".  This  was  more 
than  three  years  ago.  Subsequently  there  were  articles  making 
other  attacks  sent  to  a  journal  elsewhere  for  publication,  which 
were  declined.  Then  other  attacks  were  made  this  year,  under 
the  signature  of  "N.  R.,"  which  turned  out  to  be  the  final  letters 
of  e-d-w-i-N  c-a-t-e-R ;  and  then  there  appeared,  about  the 
same  time,  in  the  same  paper,  still  another  writer  attacking  me, 
under  the  signature  "W.  T".  Strangely  enough,  this  other 
writer,  "W.  T.",  happened  to  have,  as  his  name,  the  middle 
letters  of  e-d-W-i-n  c-a-T-e-r.  Let  me  say,  with  regard  to 
"W.  T",  that  I  do  not  certainly  know  who  "W.  T."  was ;  and 
therefore  I  do  not  express  any  opinion  on  that  subject.  Then, 
besides — and  as  the  charges  are  against  all  who  are  connected 
with  the  Committee  of  Sustentation,  and  those  who  are 
intrusted  with  the  training  of  candidates  for  the  ministry  at 
Columbia,  it  is  not  improper  for  me  to  allude  to  it — still  another 
attack,  or  at  least  a  "statement",  has  been  made  in  an  angry 
manner  against  one  of  these  in  another  journal  over  the  name 
of  [ed]  "Win  [ca]  ter."  Thus  you  see  how  many  writers 
there  are  bringing  these  charges,  and  in  how  many  places,  and 
with  what  persistency,  year  after  year.  But,  Moderator,  I  am 
here  reminded  of  a  tale  told  by  African  travellers  respecting  a 
fact  in  natural  history,  which  may  illustrate  the  point  before 
me.  It  is  said  by  those  who  have  travelled  in  that  region,  that 
when  they  have  pitched  their  tents,  at  midnight  they  are  often 
startled  by  the  terrific  roar  of  the  lion  in  one  direction.  After 
a  little  while,  not  having  yielded  to  fear  so  as  to  flee  from  the 
tent,  they  hear  in  another  direction  the  yell  and  shriek  of  the 
tiger.  If  this  does  not  drive  them  forth,  from  another  quarter 
they  hear  plaintive  wailings  uttered  by  a  very  different  voice — 
a  cry  for  pity,  to  see  whether  the  travellers,  who  could  not  be 
frightened,  may  not  be  influenced  by  compassion  to  come  to  the 
rescue.  Yet  the  experienced  traveller  knows  perfectly  well 
that  all  these  animals,  the  lion,  the  tiger,  and  that  which  appeals 
for  pity — which  don't  mean  any  harm — are  all  one  and  the 
same :  an  animal  which  may  not  be  named  before  this  Assem- 


534 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


bly — one  animal,  not  many.  And  would  you  know  all  the 
various  persons  by  whom  I  have  been  attacked,  in  various  jour- 
nals, year  after  year,  in  this  way?  All  these  numerous  persons, 
look !  Moderator — look !  there  they  all  sit  in  the  single  person 
of  Mr.  Edwin  Cater ! 

Now,  in  returning  to  the  question  as  to  whether  it  is  Isaac 
or  his  brother  who  has  brought  these  charges,  let  me  say  that  I 
do  not  intend  to  refer  in  any  extended  manner  to  this  part  of 
the  subject.  I  do  not  intend  to  dwell  upon  the  time  when 
charges  brought  by  him  against  a  high-spirited  fellow-student 
were  followed  by  personal  flagellation.  But  it  is  proper  for  me 
to  bring  to  the  notice  of  this  Assembly  this  fact — that  the 
experience  which  Mr.  Cater  told  you  he  had  with  regard  to 
trust  funds,  has  been  obtained  by  watching  the  management  of 
trust  funds  for  many  years ;  and  this  is  not  the  first  time  that 
the  General  Assembly  has  felt  it  necessary  to  consider  charges 
brought  by  him,  indirectly  at  least,  against  it  for  mismanage- 
ment of  funds — as  in  the  case  of  a  fund  held  in  Philadelphia,  I 
think,  for  the  benefit  of  the  families  of  deceased  ministers. 
But  I  will  content  myself  with  simply  stating  one  case,  showing 
where  much  of  the  skill,  and  many  of  the  legal  expressions 
which  I  heard  fall  from  that  gentleman  yesterday,  may  have 
been  obtained — namely,  a  remarkable  suit  brought  a  few  years 
ago  by  one  church  against  another  on  the  seaboard  of  South 
Carolina.  The  Circular  church  in  Charleston  had  certain 
funds;  the  Wappetaw  church,  or  at  least  certain  persons  con- 
nected with  it,  thought  they  had  a  claim  upon  those  funds. 
Hence  suits  were  brought,  chiefly  at  the  instigation  of  Mr. 
Cater.  They  were  continued  month  after  month,  giving  rise  to 
this,  among  other  things — that  the  counsel  on  one  side,  who  was 
defending  the  Circular  church,  felt  constrained  to  hold  the 
plaintiff  up  to  public  view  as  "an  ugly  specimen  of  a  Christian". 
That  suit  was  decided  against  the  Wappetaw  church,  or  those 
connected  with  the  church  who  were  interested  in  it,  and  against 
Mr.  Edwin  Cater,  who  was  the  principal  instrument  in  bringing 
the  suit  and  stirring  up  strife  about  the  funds  of  the  church. 
Now,  I  submit  that  by  such  reference,  without  saying  anything 
of  any  sum  of  money  charitably  bestowed  upon  the  defeated 
party  and  accepted  by  him  at  the  close  of  that  suit — that  by 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


535 


such  illustrations  I  have  sufficiently  shown  that  it  is  not  Isaac, 
but  Isaac's  brother,  who  has  been  bringing  these  charges  against 
me  during  all  this  succession  of  years. 

But  friendship  is  professed.  "N.  R.,  or  Edwin  Cater",  pro- 
fesses "the  most  cordial  friendship"  toward  every  one  in 
Columbia  against  whom  he  had  spoken  these  things.  "Those 
beloved  men",  he  calls  them !  Don't  you  see  what  sweet  friend- 
ship is  conveyed  in  that  language?  "Beloved  men  who  seem  so 
anxiously  willing  to  'tote'  everything" !  How  can  these  beloved 
brethren  be  so  unreasonable  as  not  to  reciprocate  this  "most 
cordial  friendship"  ?  Oh,  Moderator,  if  it  should  ever  be  your 
lot,  or  the  lot  of  any  of  these  fathers  and  brethren  before  me, 
to  need  a  friend,  I  pray  God  that  you  may  be  preserved  from 
such  friendship  as  Edwin  Cater  has  shown  towards  those  whom 
he  so  much  loves ! 

Let  me  turn  now  to  the  charges,  or  statements — for  I  may  not 
call  them  charges — made  by  Dr.  Hill.  I  happen  by  accident  to 
have  in  my  pocket — not  by  accident  to  have  in  this  city — certain 
documents  which  I  beg  leave  to  read.  As  Treasurer,  I  am 
charged  with  delay  in  the  transmission  of  funds  to  our  brethren 
in  China.  There  had  been  a  long-continued  correspondence  as 
to  the  best  mode  of  transmitting  these  funds.  The  result  of 
this  correspondence  was  that  our  deceased  brother  Inslee 
wished  that  I  should  deposit  money  in  New  York  subject  to  his 
draft.  I  did  so,  and  informed  him  of  it.  I  could  not  of  course 
both  send  the  money  to  China  and  keep  it  in  New  York  on 
deposit  subject  to  his  order.  But  it  happened — not  from  my 
ignorance  of  business,  (for  I  am  not  ignorant  of  that  kind  of 
business,  if  I  am  a  minister  of  the  gospel ;  I  profess  to  know 
how  to  transmit  funds  wherever  they  are  to  be  sent,)  but  from 
some  misapprehension,  I  know  not  how  it  arose — that  our 
deceased  brother  informed  me,  after  a  time,  that  he  was  not 
able  to  draw  without  further  arrangements  which  had  not  been 
consummated ;  and  there  was  a  period  of  distress  in  that  mis- 
sion, in  consequence  of  the  non-transmission  of  funds.  We 
have  heard  that  it  was  stated  before  the  Synod  of  Kentucky 
and  elsewhere  that  such  periods  of  distress  had  often  occurred ; 
that  this  had  been  going  on  for  a  long  time.  Now,  let  me  read 
a  letter,  in  the  first  place,  from — 


536 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Dr.  J.  Leighton  Wilson — Allow  me  to  interrupt  Brother 
Woodrow.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  matter  into  which  he  has 
been  provoked  to  go  by  Dr.  Hill,  really  does  not  relate  to  the 
subject  in  hand.  If  there  are  charges  brought  against  us  in 
relation  to  our  foreign  missionary  work,  I  shall  insist  that  this 
Assembly  appoint  a  committee  to  investigate  the  whole  matter. 
We  are  just  as  ready  to  go  into  an  investigation,  and  have  our 
character  scrutinised  in  this  as  in  anything  else.  Although  Dr. 
Woodrow  has  a  perfect  right  ito  reply  to  irrelevant  charges,  it 
seems  to  me  that  it  is  best  not  to  go  into  them  here. 

The  Moderator — The  Chair  would  state  that  by  his  silence, 
and  by  the  silence  of  the  whole  house,  which  thus  expressed 
consent,  Dr.  Hill  was  allowed  to  make  statements  as  far  as  he 
pleased  concerning  this  matter.  The  Chair  feels  bound  to  give 
the  same  liberty  to  Dr.  Woodrow.  Dr.  Woodrow  may  per- 
sonally give  as  much  weight  as  he  thinks  proper  to  the  sugges- 
tion of  Dr.  Wilson ;  but  he  has  the  floor  and  the  right  to  be 
heard. 

Dr.  Woodrow — I  would  simply  say,  then,  in  reply  to  the 
suggestion  of  Dr.  Wilson,  that  unless  there  shall  seem  to  be 
some  further  reason,  I  will  only  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  I 
have  papers  here  on  the  spot  which  will  sufficiently  answer  all 
the  questions  that  Dr.  Hill  or  any  other  member  of  the  Assem- 
bly may  put. 

Dr.  Pryor — I  hope  he  will  proceed  with  that. 

Dr.  Hill — I  hope  he  will,  sir. 

Dr.  Woodrow — Since  Dr.  Hill  hopes  I  will  proceed,  I  shall 
do  so.  I  begin  by  reading  a  letter  from  a  beloved  young 
brother,  John  L.  Stuart,  one  of  our  missionaries.  Let  me  say 
that  I  know  no  three  ministers  in  our  Church  whom  I  would 
more  surely  trust  than  Matthew  Hale  Houston,  John  L.  Stuart, 
and  Ben  Helm.  I  believe  them  to  be  entirely  truthful,  and 
that  if  any  expression  to  my  detriment  has  at  any  time  been 
used  by  any  one  of  them,  it  is  based  entirely  upon  their  misap- 
prehension of  facts ;  and  if  the  facts  they  may  have  misappre- 
hended could  be  fully  brought  before  them,  I  am  sure,  from 
their  noble  character,  if  the  proper  opportunity  were  given,  they 
would  cheerfully  retract.  The  intimations  which  Dr.  Hill  has 
alluded  to  consist  partly  in  this:  "That  frequently  during  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


537 


history  of  the  mission  in  China  our  brethren  have  been  without 
funds."  I  would  say  that  if  they  had  been  very  nearly  without 
funds,  it  would  not  be  strange  in  the  history  of  this  Church. 
That,  I  apprehend,  has  been  the  case  with  most  of  us.  But  I 
wish  to  read  letters  to  show  that  such  distress  as  was  published 
in  that  same  paper  at  Louisville,  and  upon  which  the  action,  so 
far  as  I  understand  it,  of  Dr.  Hill's  Presbytery  and  Synod  was 
based — 

Dr.  Hill — Mr.  Moderator,  let  me  say  to  Dr.  Woodrow, 
through  you,  that  the  action  of  our  Committee  was  based  upon 
the  letters  of  these  young  brethren  which  were  put  into  my 
hands ;  not  upon  any  newspaper  articles  at  all. 

Dr.  Wilson — What  were  the  names  of  the  brethren? 

Dr.  Hill — Helm  and  Stuart;  we  also  had  one  from  Mr. 
Houston  sent  from  Virginia. 

Dr.  Woodrow — I  have  here  a  letter  from  the  Rev.  John  L. 
Stuart,  dated  September  24th,  1869,  from  which  I  first  read: 

"Gutsiu,  China,  September  24th,  1869. 

"Prof.  James  Woodrow — Rev.  and  Dear  Sir:  My  mother, 
mistaking  my  object  in  writing  to  her  concerning  the  mission's 
need  of  money  to  purchase  property,  sent  me  a  check  for  fif- 
teen pounds  and  one- fourth  sterling — the  proceeds  of  one 
hundred  (greenback)  dollars.  As  it  was  sent  under  misappre- 
hension, and  is  not  at  all  needed  by  me  personally,  my  wants 
being  abundantly  supplied,  I  desire  to  return  it  to  her."  Then 
follow  directions  as  to  the  return  which  I  need  not  read.  Then 
he  proceeds :  "What  misled  my  mother  was  a  question  I  asked 
concerning  the  money — more  than  fifteen  hundred  dollars — 
raised  in  the  Kentucky  Synod  in  the  summer  of  1868  for  the 
outfit,  etc.,  of  Bro.  Helm  and  myself.  I  had  never  seen  any 
acknowledgement  of  it.  She  did  not  write  me  any  satisfactory 
answer — only  that  Mr.  Grasty,  her  pastor,  said,  'It  had  been 
sent,  and  I  need  not  fear  for  my  support.'"  Surely  I  never 
feared  on  that  score,  and  the  late  proceedings  of  our  noble 
Church  give  us  confidence  that  scores  more  may  be  supported 
on  heathen  soil  in  the  glorious  work."  This  shows  whether  or 
not  there  had  been  distress  before  this  time. 

[Mr.  Inslee,  in  a  letter  of  November  9,  1869,  says,  speaking 
of  letters  written  by  another  of  the  brethren :  "We  never 


538 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


intended  any  such  interpretation  as  that  of  our  being  in  per- 
sonal want."] 

I  beg  leave  next  to  read  a  part  of  a  letter  which  many  will 
recognise  as  in  the  handwriting  of  our  departed  brother,  Inslee; 
it  is  dated  December  12th,  1869 :  "The  young  men  have  drawn 
their  salary  money  as  they  have  needed.  None  of  them  have 
ever  been  in  personal  want,  though  once  or  twice  we  were  run 
rather  close.  I  could  have  borrowed,  in  case  of  real  necessity." 
Of  course,  if  the  young  brethren  were  not  in  want — 

Dr.  Hill. — I  would  say  to  Dr.  Woodrow  that  the  letters  we 
had  were  all  some  months  after  that  date. 

Dr.  Woodrow — I  read  next  an  extract  from  a  letter  from 
one  of  the  missionaries  in  China  at  that  time  who  has  since 
returned  to  this  country : 

"Shanghai,  July  6,  1870. 

"Rev.  James  Woodrow — Rev.  and  Dear  Sir:  You  will  ere 
this  reaches  you  have  received  my  telegram,  kindly  forwarded 
by  Rev.  J.  G.  Fackler,  of  San  Francisco.  It  states  the  simple 
fact  that  your  mission  here  is  a  set  of  beggars.  The  mission 
treasury  has  not  had  one  cent  in  it  for  the  past  four  months. 

".  .  .  .  Thos.  E.  Converse." 

[The  Mission  Treasurer  writes  as  follows: 

"Shanghai,  June  7,  1870. 

"Dear  Bro.  Woodrow  :  I  have  just  received  2  boxes  per 
Pacific  Mail  St.,  through  Mr.  Coulson,  N.  York,  containing 
$2,000  Mexicans  E.  B.  Inslee."] 

Now,  Moderator,  note  the  date  of  that— July  6,  1870.  Here 
is  a  letter  written  on  the  25th  June,  1870,  eleven  days  previous, 
from  Rev.  E.  B.  Inslee  to  Dr.  Wilson :  "In  regard  to  the  mis- 
sion funds,  I  have  about  used  what  was  allowed  me.  Before 
leaving  Hangchow,  we  had  a  general  settlement,  so  as  to  keep 
matters  straight.  The  three  young  men  have  all  lived  within  the 
amount  allowed  them,  though  Messrs.  Stuart,  Helm,  and  Hous- 
ton have  had  and  used  some  private  funds  sent  to  them  by 
friends.  Mr.  Converse  has  overdrawn,  for  the  time  he  has 
been  in  China,  $400  or  $500  (Mexican).  What  is  to  become  of 
him  I  do  not  know."  (Then  there  are  here  some  passages 
which  I  will  omit,  unless  they  are  called  for.)  "I  did  not  know 
he  was  so  much  in  debt  to  the  mission  till  recently,  because  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


539 


money  he  brought  out  he  deposited  in  the  bank  at  Shanghai 
and  drew  from  it." 

This  is  what  Mr.  Inslee  says  on  that  subject  eleven  days 
before  that  letter  was  written  saying  that  "the  mission  is  a  set 
of  beggars".  The  Mission  Treasurer,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Inslee, 
writes  that  the  writer  of  that  letter,  before  whose  going  to  that 
country  no  word  of  serious  complaint  of  this  kind  had  come  to 
us,  had  overdrawn  his  salary  by  four  or  five  hundred  Mexican 
dollars. 

Dr.  J.  Leighton  Wilson — If  Bro.  Woodrow  will  allow 
another  friendly  interruption,  I  would  renew  my  suggestion. 
Dr.  Woodrow — Dr.  Hill  called  for  it. 

Dr.  Wilson — I  know  he  did ;  and  I  believe  the  Treasurer  can 
vindicate  himself  most  triumphantly. 
Dr.  Hill — Mr.  Moderator — 

The  Moderator — The  Chair  must  declare  that  Dr.  Wood- 
row  has  the  floor,  except  as  he  is  willing  to  be  interrupted. 

Dr.  Wilson — I  had  his  permission.  I  would  just  make  this 
further  statement.  This  thing  should  be  put  into  a  different 
form.  Some  of  these  brethren  have  written  letters  (which  are 
not  here)  retracting  a  great  deal  that  has  been  said.  This  goes 
into  a  great  many  things  of  a  private  nature.  I  do  not  think 
it  is  proper,  or  compatible  with  the  interests  of  the  mission,  that 
this  matter  should  be  brought  out  in  this  manner  in  this  Assem- 
bly. I  hope  for  the  interest  of  missions  that  this  correspond- 
ence will  be  put  in  the  hands  of  a  Committee,  and  that  all  these 
matters  should  not  be  blurted  out  to  the  injury  of  the  cause  of 
Christ  and  to  the  grief  of  those  brethren.  It  is  not  competent 
to  me  to  make  the  motion.  My  suggestion  is  that  a  Committee 
be  appointed  to  report  to  the  next  Assembly. 

Dr.  Joseph  R.  Wilson — I  would  be  very  glad  to  make  such 
a  motion,  were  it  not  for  the  statement  of  Dr.  Hill,  that  he  has 
heard  all  that  could  be  said,  and  is  still  of  the  opinion  that  these 
officers  have  acted  improperly.  I  would  like  the  Assembly  to 
hear  the  whole  subject  now,  and  see  if  this  Assembly  will  think 
as  Dr.  Hill  and  his  Synod  think.  Dr.  Hill  says  he  is  not  pre- 
pared to  vote  for  a  paper  to  exonerate  them  altogether  as 
officers. 


540 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Dr.  HiivL — If  Brother  Woodrow  will  allow  me  to  make  a 
remark.  No  letter  from  Mr.  Converse  was  before  our  Presby- 
tery or  Synod.  They  were  all  from  the  other  brethren  It 
was  a  proposition  from  one  of  them  to  resign  his  place  and 
come  home,  because  he  could  not  get  any  money,  and  was 
obliged  to  borrow  from  missionaries  of  the  Northern  Board. 

Dr.  Woodrow — You  will  observe  that  I  stated  distinctly  that 
there  was  an  interval  of  most  painful  distress,  as  I  published  to 
the  world  through  the  Southern  Presbyterian.  It  arose  from 
a  misapprehension,  as  I  have  stated,  between  the  deceased 
brother  and  myself  as  to  the  mode  of  transmitting  funds.  I 
will  not  go  further  into  this  subject,  (unless  it  is  demanded,) 
under  the  influence  of  the  remarks  which  have  very  properly 
been  made.  I  would  simply  say  that  I  have  here  a  list — which, 
with  other  letters,  I  lay  on  your  table,  subject  to  the  call  of  any 
who  desire  to  hear  them — a  list  of  all  payments  made  to  the 
China  Mission  from  its  commencement,  which  I  can  sustain — 
need  I  say? — by  vouchers,  to  show  to  any  one  that  while  our 
missionaries  may  have  been  "run  close",  they  could  not  have 
been  in  distress,  as  our  beloved  brother  John  L.  Stuart,  and  our 
deceased  brother  Inslee,  say  they  had  not  been  up  to  the  end  of 
1869,  and  were  not  at  the  middle  of  1870.  I  will  not  read  it, 
because  I  wish  to  say  more  about  other  matters. 

Dr.  Pryor — Will  Dr.  Woodrow  explain  again  that  misunder- 
standing between  Brother  Inslee  and  himself  about  the  trans- 
mission of  funds? 

Dr.  Woodrow — At  the  request  of  Mr.  Inslee,  I  deposited 
money  in  New  York  subject  to  his  draft.  So  far  as  I  was 
aware,  and  so  far  as  I  believe  at  this  moment,  I  therein  followed 
one  set  of  directions  which  he  had  given  me.  I  supposed  that 
he  knew  that  that  mode  was  satisfactory.  I  would  myself  have 
chosen  another  mode,  but  I  preferred  acting  in  accordance  with 
his  request.  It  turned  out  that  he  was  in  error,  that  he  had 
omitted  one  important  particular,  and  hence  was  not  able  to 
draw  upon  the  money  which  I  kept  in  New  York  at  the  time. 

[Mr.  Inslee  wrote,  March  5,  1870  :  "We  begin  to  feel  anxious 
about  money  for  two  reasons ;  one  is,  we  shall  soon  be  needing 
it,  and  the  other  is,  we  fear  your  letter  may  have  been  miscar- 
ried."   A  remittance  of  $2,000  Mexican  reached  Shanghai 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


541 


before  June  7th,  1870;  so  that  the  period  of  distress  was 
between  these  dates.] 

Now,  Moderator,  to  come  to  the  other  charges.  It  is  said 
that  Dr.  Wilson  mentioned  in  his  report  a  thousand  dollars  as 
appropriated  to  one  thing,  and  that  I  charged  the  treasury 
$2,700  for  that  same  item.  But  let  me  call  your  attention  to 
the  fact  that  the  Secretary  in  his  report  says  immediately  under 
the  passage  which  is  quoted  in  the  paper,  and  which  I  have 
read:  "In  referring  to  the  general  appropriations  made  from 
the  Sustentation  Fund,  it  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the 
financial  year  observed  by  the  Committee  extends  from  January 
to  January,  and  not  from  one  meeting  of  the  Assembly  to 
another."  But  my  accounts  extend  from  one  meeting  of  the 
Assembly  to  another.  Thus  you  see  that  the  two  things  are 
entirely  distinct.  Then,  if  you  will  refer  to  the  accounts  which 
I  have  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Auditing  Committee,  and  in 
the  hands  of  the  Investigating  Committee,  you  will  see  that 
seventeen  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  were  paid  prior  to  July  15, 
1869,  while  nine  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  were  paid  between 
the  1st  of  January,  1870,  and  the  1st  of  April,  1870.  Did  I 
take,  then,  seventeen  hundred  dollars  because  there  are  twenty- 
seven  hundred  charged  in  my  account,  and  Dr.  Wilson  speaks 
only  of  the  appropriation  of  about  one  thousand?  And  is  this 
to  be  presented  as  an  objection  to  the  continuing  of  the  Com- 
mittee at  Columbia  ?  Let  me  say,  in  passing,  that  I  have  never 
uttered  one  word  in  favor  of  its  remaining  there — I  care  noth- 
ing with  regard  to  that  point;  but  this  is  given  as  an  objection 
to  the  continuance  of  the  Committee — an  objection  to  me — that 
not  quite  $1,000  was  appropriated  by  the  Committee,  and  yet 
that  I  took  $2,700  to  pay  this  withal. 

But  it  seems  that  "a  bond  reported  in  the  Foreign  Mission 
treasury  for  1869  has  disappeared."  That  treasury  is  in  my 
custody,  thanks  to  the  confidence  reposed  in  me,  year  after 
year,  for  these  ten  years,  by  this  venerable  body.  I  would  sup- 
pose that  any  one  who  understands  business,  who  has  passed 
through  church  law-suits,  who  has  managed  extensive  educa- 
tional interests,  who  has  spent  so  much  of  his  time  in  studying 
figures  in  connexion  with  trust  funds,  would  know  that  my 
reports  are  for  the  contributions  of  the  churches  and  the 


542 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


expenditures  of  the  Commitee  year  after  year,  and  that  I  do  not 
in  my  annual  reports  to  this  body  present  an  account  of  the 
assets  of  the  Committee.  But  I  have  here  to  confess  a  business 
fault.  I  make  a  clean  breast  of  it.  I  knew  that  it  was  bad 
book-keeping,  but  I  knew  there  was  a  "Decern"  in  the  Church. 
It  turns  out  that  there  is  an  "N.  R".  also,  and  a  "W.  T" ,  and 
I  don't  know  how  many  more  of  them.  I  knew — because  I 
had  been  made  to  suffer  from  it — that  there  was  a  "Decern"  at 
least;  and  rather  than  be  subjected  to  such  carping  criticisms. 
I  was  one  year  guilty  of  the  bad  book-keeping  of  reporting  the 
assets,  so  far  as  related  to  one  bond,  on  both  sides  of  my 
account ;  thereby,  as  I  humbly  confess,  misrepresenting  the  total 
amount  of  receipts  and  expenditures  for  that  year,  but  in  such 
a  way,  as  you  readily  perceive,  that  it  could  not  create  a  false 
impression.  I  mean  simply  that  I  entered  bonds  for  a  thousand 
dollars,  which  I  had  received  in  1868,  on  both  sides  of  my 
account  in  1869 — that  is,  I  charged  myself  with  it  and  credited 
myself  with  it — having  acknowledged  the  receipt  of  it  in  1868. 
But  in  1869,  the  Chairman  of  your  Auditing  Committee  at 
Mobile,  the  Hon.  Mr.  Gresham,  a  pure  and  noble  man,  who 
understands  business,  who  loves  the  Church,  pleasantly  twitted 
me  about  it.  Well,  I  confessed  there,  as  I  confess  here,  that  I 
knew  it  was  not  good  book-keeping;  but  then  I  knew  that 
"surplusage  doth  not  vitiate".  It  was  not  making  false  repre- 
sentations ;  it  was  only  making  a  statement  in  addition  to  what 
was  required.  It  did  not  in  any  way  vitiate  the  truthfulness  or 
the  accuracy  of  my  account.  Under  the  influence  of  this 
reasonable  objection  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Gresham  and  the  rest 
of  the  Auditing  Committee,  I  did  things  the  next  year  in  a  more 
rigid  business  manner — in  such  a  way  that  any  one  except 
"Decern",  "N.  R".,  "W.  T",  or  some  of  them,  would  have  fully 
understood.  Has  the  thousand  dollar  bond  disappeared  ?  No, 
Moderator,  it  is  in  my  safe — your  safe,  I  mean;  but  I  am  so 
identified,  Moderator,  with  you,  that  I  cannot  think  of  you  as 
different  from  myself  in  this  respect ;  and  it  is  my  safe  for  the 
time.  The  two  five  hundred  dollar  bonds  are  at  this  moment 
in  that  safe;  and  if  you  will  examine  my  books  now  upon  your 
table,  you  will  see  that  I  report  regularly  the  revenue  received 
from  those  bonds.    No !    The  bond  has  not  "disappeared  from 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


543 


the  Foreign  Mission  treasury" ;  and  I  trust  that  no  man  living 
thinks  that  it  ever  will,  so  long  as  I  am  custodian  of  the  funds 
of  the  Church.  You  have  intrusted  me  up  to  the  present  time 
with  four  hundred  and  seventy-five  thousand  two  hundred  and 
seventy-five  dollars.  This  half  a  million  of  dollars  I  have 
expended  under  your  direction;  and  I  have  presented  to  you, 
through  your  auditing  committees,  vouchers  in  full  for  every 
cent  of  it. 

Now,  there  was  a  new  item,  a  new  charge,  (but  let  me  again 
correct  myself — not  a  charge — these  are  simply  "statements"  ! 
mere  "inquiries"!)  made  yesterday  with  regard  to  the  church 
of  which  Mr.  Edwin  Cater  is  pastor — College  Hill  church.  I 
have  to  confess  to  a  little  bad  book-keeping  there  again. 
Thirty-two  dollars  was  the  sum  sent  me  by  Mr,  H.  A.  Buford, 
(if  I  have  the  initials  right ;  I  have  to  be  very  careful  in  speak- 
ing of  initials,  for  I  have  received  at  least  one  scoring  from 
Mr.  Edwin  Cater  for  making  alleged  mistakes  in  initials;  I 
think,  however,  it  was  H.  A.,  or,  to  be  very  particular,  possibly 
H.  N.  Buford,)  treasurer  of  the  church.  I  supposed  from  the 
words  of  the  letter  that  the  amount  was  for  Sustentation,  and 
so  entered  it.  So  you  will  find  it  in  my  books  which  rest  upon 
this  table.  This  was  in  July.  I  do  not  attribute  any  fault  to 
Mr.  Buford:  but  in  October  (I  had  published  that  I  had 
received  it  for  Sustentation  in  August)  I  received  a  letter  from 
Mr.  Cater,  telling  me  that  it  was  not  for  Sustentation,  but  for 
Foreign  Missions.  As  soon  thereafter  as  possible,  I  published 
that  the  error  had  been  committed.  I  did  not  say  that  /  had 
committed  it,  for  I  had  not ;  but  I  did  not  say  anything  to  the 
contrary  :  and  so  perhaps  left  it  to  be  inferred  that  I  had.  I 
published  it  as  widely  as  my  paper  would  circulate.  The 
amount  was  transferred  to  the  Foreign  Mission  treasury.  But 
when  I  was  making  up  my  account  for  the  last  General  Assem- 
bly, I  forgot  to  put  it  in — the  record  of  the  change  was  in  an 
unusual  place,  as  it  was  an  unusual  transaction.  But  I  had 
published  to  the  world  that  I  had  the  money,  and  that  it  had 
been  transferred.  The  money  had  been  put  into  the  treasury. 
I  did  not  forget  that!  Finding  that  I  had  overlooked  the  trans- 
fer in  the  account  that  I  rendered  to  the  last  General  Assembly, 
I  published,  (I  did  not  conceal:  I  have  nothing  to  conceal  from 


544 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


you,)  I  published  that  thirty-two  dollars  was  in  the  treasury 
which  was  not  included  in  the  report — in  a  foot-note,  as  was 
correctly  stated  yesterday ;  and  I  there  said  I  would  include  it  in 
this  year's  report;  and  I  did,  as  you  will  see  from  my  report 
before  you.  I  paid  the  money  to  the  Foreign  Mission  treasury; 
and  then — what  else?  Moderator,  I  am  not  in  the  habit  of 
speaking  of  myself,  unless  forced  to  do  so;  but  I  did  not  want 
to  take  thirty-two  dollars  out  of  the  Sustentation  treasury  and 
transfer  it  to  the  Foreign  Mission  treasury ;  I  took  that  amount 
out  of  my  own  pocket,  and  paid  it  into  the  Foreign  Mission 
treasury  from  that  source,  leaving  Mr.  Cater's  church  credited 
for  it  both  in  the  Foreign  Mission  account  and  the  Sustentation 
account ;  and  here  it  stands.  I  gave  Mr.  Cater's  church  credit 
last  year  for  the  thirty-two  dollars.  This,  in  addition  to  $15.15, 
the  amount  they  actually  sent  for  Sustentation,  makes  $47.15, 
which  you  see  there  recorded !  In  this  I  do  not  think  I  com- 
mitted a  great  crime.  The  thirty-two  dollars  was  mine;  if  I 
have  done  wrong,  it  was  in  leaving  it  to  be  inferred  that  they 
gave  thirty-two  dollars  which  they  did  not  give.    /  gave  it. 

You  have  been  told  in  these  articles,  and  you  have  been  told 
by  Dr.  Hill  that  he  believes  it  to  be  true,  that  I  have  "too  many 
irons  in  the  fire".  Well,  as  you  have  seen,  I  have  a  good  many. 
First,  I  am  a  Professor  in  the  Theological  Seminary.  This 
venerable  body  did  not  elect  me,  but  it  adopted  me.  I  was 
elected  by  another  court  of  the  Church.  When  you  took  pos- 
session of  the  Seminary,  you  adopted  me,  and  by  so  doing  said 
that  you  approved  of  my  being  a  Professor  in  the  Seminary.  I 
did  not  fix  my  salary;  and  when  I  became  your  Professor  in 
your  Theological  Seminary,  I  did  not  sell  you  all  my  time,  if  I 
did  get  three  thousand  dollars  from  you.  I  do  not  perforin  the 
work  of  my  professorship  in  that  way.  I  do  not  "work  by  the 
day" ;  I  "work  by  the  piece".  You  did  not  buy  all  my  time, 
and  you  know  you  did  not.  It  is  asked,  How  do  you  know  it? 
You  appointed  me,  when  I  was  already  Professor,  to  be  Treas- 
urer of  Foreign  Missions  in  1861.  Well,  I  did  not  want  any 
more  money.  I  had  enough.  I  had  not  very  much,  it  is  true  ; 
for  I  had  a  wife  and  some  children  to  support,  and  I  had  use 
for  all  the  money  I  could  honestly  get.  But  I  did  not  want  any 
more  from  the  Church.    (You  have  forced  me  to  speak  of 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


545 


myself ;  I  cannot  help,  in  vindicating  myself,  presenting  these 
personal  matters.)  When  you  call  upon  me  to  perform  any 
duty,  I  obey  you.  The  voice  of  this  Assembly  is  to  me  the 
voice  of  God.  You  bade  me  take  care  of  the  funds  of  the 
Foreign  Mission  treasury,  and  I  did  it.  I  did  not  want  any 
money  for  it.  Then,  in  1863,  you  made  me  your  Treasurer  of 
Domestic  Missions,  and  I  begged  that  no  salary  should  be 
attached  to  that  office.  So  I  served  for  three  years.  But  Dr. 
Dabney,  when  he  was  chairman  of  one  of  your  standing  com- 
mittees at  Charlotte,  in  1864,  brought  in  a  report,  in  regard  to 
which  I  knew  nothing  beforehand,  saying  in  effect  that  this  was 
not  right — that  I  must  receive  a  salary ;  and  the  General  Assem- 
bly ordered  the  Committee  to  pay  me  a  salary.  You  thus 
taught  me  that  you  did  not  think  you  had  previously  paid  for 
all  my  time.  If,  therefore,  it  is  stealing  your  money  to  take  pay 
for  work  I  do,  on  the  ground  that  you  have  with  $3,000  paid  me 
for  all  my  time,  it  is  you  who  did  it,  not  I.  This  is  all  I  get 
from  the  Church.  But  I  work  for  it.  I  did  not  sell  you  all 
my  time,  and  you  said  I  did  not.  I  submit,  therefore,  that  to 
charge  me  before  the  world  and  before  the  Church  with  taking 
your  money  twice  for  the  same  thing,  is  something  that  a 
"good  brother",  an  "excellent  brother",  a  "cordial  friend",  a 
representative  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  ought  not  to  do. 

But  this  is  not  all.  I  have  ever  so  many  other  "small  irons". 
Well,  that  is  so ;  I  have.  I  am  editor  of  the  Southern  Presby- 
terian. How  did  I  come  to  be  editor  of  the  Southern  Presby- 
terian? It  was  necessary  that  somebody  should  be.  The 
brethren  in  that  region  all  concurred  that  the  paper  was  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  foster  the  enterprises  of  the  Church.  There 
was  not  a  dissenting  voice  in  all  the  broad  region  where  the 
paper  circulates  upon  that  point.  It  must  be  done.  But  who 
shall  do  it?  You  know  the  condition  of  things  at  the  end  of 
the  war.  We  had  no  money ;  I  had  none.  I  had  nothing  except 
a  will  to  serve  the  Church  with  whatever  of  gifts  God  might 
bestow  upon  me,  humble  though  they  might  be.  I  was  ready 
to  lay  all  at  his  feet  and  obey  his  call.  I  had  no  money,  so 
that  I  could  not  by  myself  revive  the  paper.  But  I  have  a 
brother,  a  noble  brother, — Thomas  Woodrow,  of  Chillicothe, 
Ohio, — who  had  money ;  and  that  money  he  placed  at  my  dis- 


35— w 


546 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


posal,  for  myself,  or  for  my  Church,  if  I  loved  her  more.  I 
accepted  his  gift;  I  established  the  paper;  and  I  have  continued 
it  by  that  help  to  this  day,  and  I  humbly  trust  by  the  help  and 
with  the  approbation  of  my  Master  in  heaven. 

But  I  am  also  the  publisher  and  one  of  the  editors — the 
junior,  the  least  important  editor — of  the  Southern  Presbyterian 
Review.  Well,  what  was  the  state  of  things  at  the  end  of  the 
war  with  regard  to  this?  As  I  said  before,  no  one  had  any 
money ;  but  every  one  said  that  we  should  continue  to  support 
this  Review,  this  mark  of  our  life  and  strength,  our  medium  of 
communication  with  one  another,  for  circulating  throughout  the 
Church  that  which  comes  from  her  master  minds.  It  was  said, 
"Oh  that  we  could  have  it ;  but  we  cannot ;  we  are  too  poor !" 
Moderator,  we  are  never  too  poor  to  do  what  God  wants  us  to 
do — what  his  glory  requires ;  and  although  I  had  no  more  than 
any  one  else,  I  determined  that  that  Review  should  not  be  dis- 
continued. And  it  was  not.  It  goes  forth  now,  bearing  the 
productions  of  one,  and  another,  and  another,  and  another  of 
the  members  of  this  Assembly,  all  over  the  land.  So,  then,  I 
suppose  it  was  not  the  continuance  of  the  Review,  or  the  doing 
anything  in  that  direction,  that  was  the  evil. 

But  then,  I  had  a  Depository!  Yes,  I  had.  There  was  no 
Committee  of  Publication  when  I  began  it.  I  began  a  little 
Committee  of  Publication  on  my  own  account.  I  knew  where 
I  could  get  plenty  of  money,  and  I  got  it.  At  my  own 
expense,  I  did  what  your  Committee  of  Publication  is  doing 
with  your  money,  though  on  a  very  small  and  humble  scale. 
But  when  we  are  in  straits,  a  small  scale  will  do.  "Half  a  loaf 
is  better  than  no  bread."  And  I  have  the  satisfaction  of  hav- 
ing received  the  thanks  of  men  whom  any  one  might  be  proud 
of  being  thanked  by.  When  communication  became  easy,  and 
there  seemed  to  be  no  longer  any  imperative  call  for  my  little 
committee,  I  gave  it  up ;  I  closed  it  nearly  a  year  ago.  I  have 
therefore  taken  that  "iron"  very  much  out  of  the  fire ;  there  is 
a  little  sticking  in  still,  but  I  have  taken  it  out  just  as  far  as  I 
possibly  could. 

But  there  is  yet  another  "iron".  "You  have  a  printing- 
ofhce!"  Yes,  I  have  a  printing-office  ;  and  there  is  a  good  deal 
of  work  done  there,  and  there  is  something  made  at  it.  There 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


547 


are  printers  on  this  floor — fellow-craftsmen — and  they  know 
that  job-printing  is  somewhat  profitable.  And  I  get  these 
profits.  Well,  I  suppose  no  one  will  say  that  having  a  print- 
ing-office is  in  itself  a  very  bad  thing. 

But  there  are  still  other  "irons".  "You  are  teaching  outside 
of  the  Seminary !"  Yes,  I  am.  Some  two  years  ago,  a  distin- 
guished Professor  of  Chemistry  in  the  University  of  South 
Carolina  accepted  a  call  to  California,  and  the  old  friends  of 
that  University  said  to  me,  "Come  and  occupy  his  Chair ;  this  is 
the  only  place  which  political  revolution  has  not  reached ;  come, 
and  be  our  Professor,  and  help  to  save  the  institution."  I 
declined  promptly.  They  came  again  and  again,  and  said, 
"Consult  your  brethren ;  you  have  respect  for  their  opinions." 
I  consulted  my  brethren,  especially  my  fathers,  Dr.  Wilson,  Dr. 
Howe,  Dr.  Adger ;  I  consulted  elders  and  ministers  throughout 
the  entire  State,  so  far  as  I  could.  They  all  said,  with  one 
voice,  "Take  it,  if  you  can  save  the  University,  or  help  thereto." 
I  took  it.  I  have  had  that  "small  iron  in  the  fire"  ever  since. 
But  is  that  a  sin?  I  think  it  cannot  be  very  bad.  It  is  not 
wrong  to  have  scientific  proclivities.  Why,  Moderator,  I  am 
reminded  by  this  allusion  to  science  and  to  this  professorship, 
of  certain  occurrences  which  possibly  may  have  helped,  let  me 
say,  to  turn  the  tide  of  what  "Isaac's  brother"  does  against 
Columbia  and  South  Carolina,  from  which  we  are  there  suffer- 
ing at  this  moment.  I  can  testify  that  it  is  a  pleasant  thing  to 
study  science.  I  have  delighted  in  the  study  of  geology  and 
chemistry  for  more  than  quarter  of  a  century.  Others  have 
had  this  same  fondness.  In  certain  stages  of  society,  that 
which  is  unexplained  is  referred  to  spirits,  ghosts,  etc.  When 
you  get  a  little  above  this  lowest  stage,  everything  that  cannot 
be  explained  is  referred  to  electricity.  We  all  know  what  elec- 
tricity is — at  least  we  think  we  do ;  though  I  suppose  if  I  were 
giving  a  lecture  on  chemistry,  I  would  say  we  do  not.  Now, 
there  was  a  famous  rock  in  Fairfield  District,  South  Carolina, 
which  had  moved.  Xobody  could  explain  it.  But  it  was 
explained  at  length  by  referring  it  to  electricity — that  explains 
everything.  Well,  there  was  a  vacancy  in  the  very  chair  (so 
far  as  I  am  informed)  which  I  now  hold  in  the  University  of 
South  Carolina.    There  were  many  applicants  for  it.    By  one 


548 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


of  these  applicants,  who  had  settled  the  Fairfield  rock  question, 
letters  and  testimonials  were  collected  and  published  without 
the  fear  of  the  types  before  his  eyes.  Numerous  copies  were 
printed — how  numerous  I  do  not  know.  And  then,  there  was 
a  letter  written  to  the  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  in 
which  the  promise  was  made  that  if  the  writer  of  that  letter 
should  only  be  chosen  (he  who  was  commended  in  these  printed 
testimonials),  he  would  put  the  Chair  of  Chemistry  in  that 
University  on  an  equal  footing  with  that  at  Yale  under  the 
distinguished  Silliman !  Well,  now,  Moderator,  it  surely  cannot 
be  very  wrong  for  me,  under  the  influence  of  the  earnest 
appeals  made  to  me,  and  sustained  by  such  persons  as  I  have 
named,  to  have  accepted  and  to  hold  what  Mr.  Edwin  Cater 
sought  in  this  way,  but  failed  to  obtain!  Oh,  but  I  make  too 
much  money !  Yes ;  I  do  make  a  good  deal  of  money.  But  I 
suppose  I  need  not  say  that  that  is  not  a  crime. 

Now  I  come  to  consider  how  it  happens  that  all  these  things 
can  be  done  by  one  man.  Well,  I  am  not  very  strong ;  you  see 
I  am  not  very  big!  But,  Moderator,  fathers,  and  brethren,  I 
have  consecrated  myself,  with  all  that  I  am,  and  all  that  I  have, 
and  all  that  I  can  do,  to  the  service  of  Jesus,  my  blessed 
Redeemer  ;  and  I  will  serve  him  to  the  utmost  of  my  ability.  If 
anything  of  my  own  pleasure  comes  in  conflict  with  that,  I 
willingly  resign  it.  If  there  is  even  anything  in  which  it  is  in 
accordance  with  his  will  that  I  should  delight,  if  I  can  serve 
him  more  efficiently  by  giving  it  up,  I  will  cheerfully  resign  that 
also.  And  I  will  not  think  that  I  am  therein  making  a  sacrifice. 
I  will  thank  him  for  the  additional  privilege  of  permitting  me 
to  serve  him  in  one  and  another  and  another  way,  up  to  the 
utmost  limit  of  my  strength. 

But  how  is  it  possible  for  one  man  to  do  all  these  things? 
If  you  consider  how  we  are  in  the  habit  of  spending  our  time, 
it  will  occur  to  you  that  the  duties  of  society  claim,  and  claim 
rightfully,  a  considerable  portion  of  it.  It  is  right  that  we 
should  mingle  socially  with  our  fellows ;  and  it  takes  not  a  little 
time  to  attend  properly  to  the  duties  of  society.  But,  sir,  when 
on  one  occasion  messengers  were  sent  to  do  the  will  of  the 
Master,  they  were  commanded  to  "salute  no  man  by  the  way", 
but  to  go  right  on  in  the  performance  of  their  duty.  There- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


549 


fore,  thinking  that  I  was  at  liberty  to  give  up  the  duties  of 
society,  to  resign  its  pleasures,  I  have,  as  you  know,  entirely 
foregone  all  those  pleasures — which  I  delight  in  as  much  as  any 
brother,  as  any  father  here.  Moderator,  as  you  well  know,  I 
have  not  been  able  to  accept  your  invitations ;  I  have  not  been 
able  to  accept  my  own  sister's  invitation  to  spend  a  social 
evening  with  her.  I  was  doing  the  work  of  the  Master,  and  I 
verily  thought  I  was  doing  God  service  in  giving  up  the  time 
that  I  might  rightfully  have  claimed  for  the  pleasures  and  duties 
of  society.  And  I  zvas  doing  right,  and  I  thank  him  that  he  put 
it  into  my  heart  so  to  do. 

Besides,  all  men  have  a  right  to  certain  time  for  rest  and 
recreation.  I  love  rest  as  well  as  any  one ;  and  you  might  think 
when  you  look  at  my  little  body  that  I  need  it.  I  do  not  know 
whether  I  do  or  not.  That  is  a  question  which  I  have  not 
considered.  But  whenever  I  have  seen  any  service  I  could 
perform  for  my  Master,  whenever  I  have  seen  that  which 
appeared  duty  before  me,  I  have  gone  forward  and  discharged 
that  duty  to  the  best  of  my  ability.  I  have  given  up  whatever 
time  I  could  steal  from  the  needed  hours  of  rest.  So,  by  these 
two  methods,  I  have  attempted  to  keep  (shall  I  repeat  the 
scornful  expression?)  some  "irons"  at  least  from  burning. 

But  besides,  Moderator,  as  many  a  one  here  can  tell  you, 
their  letters  to  me  are  unanswered.  Yes,  they  are  ;  I  confess  it. 
And  I  now  humbly  apologise  to  multitudes  of  my  brethren  who 
are  before  me,  for  having  neglected  to  answer  their  letters. 
But  if  you  recall  what  you  wrote  in  those  letters,  you  will  find 
that  they  are  not  about  the  business  of  the  Church.  Such  are 
not  unanswered.  But  they  are  such  as  it  delighted  and  cheered 
my  heart  to  receive,  expressing  your  brotherly  love  towards 
me ;  and  such  as  I  wished  to  take  time  to  answer,  and  therefore 
laid  aside  for  the  moment  of  leisure.  But  that  moment  did  not 
come;  and  I  had  not  time  to  salute  my  brethren  by  the  way. 
And  in  all  this,  whatever  pain  it  gave  me  to  be  forced  to  with- 
hold my  acknowledgement  of  your  kind  words,  I  verily  thought 
I  was  doing  God  service,  instead  of  being  exposed  to  the  danger 
of  being  held  up  from  one  end  of  the  Church  to  the  other  as 
one  who  was  not  "doing",  as  it  is  scornfully  said  by  "N.  R".  in 
these  papers,  but  merely  "attempting"  to  do  the  Master's  work. 


550 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


But,  Moderator,  notwithstanding  all  this  multiplication  of 
methods  of  doing  additional  work,  it  is  true  that  there  are  more 
"irons"  than  I  can  possibly  attend  to  alone.  But  I  do  not 
attend  to  them  alone.  There  are  many  on  this  floor  who  have 
helped  me.  And  there  is  one  whose  "price  is  far  above  rubies" 
— one,  Moderator,  in  whom,  as  you  well  know,  "the  heart  of  her 
husband  can  safely  trust" — who  aids  me  in  all  that  I  undertake. 
In  every  possible  way,  after  having  "looked  well  to  the  ways 
of  her  household",  she  helps  me  to  save  time  so  as  to  make  two 
hours  out  of  one — the  problem  I  am  continually  attempting  to 
solve.  In  preparing  my  lectures  for  the  Theological  Seminary, 
she  sits  by  my  side  and  familiarises  herself  with  the  characters 
of  the  original  languages  of  the  Scriptures,  so  as  to  search  out 
my  references,  and  thus  save  so  much  of  my  time.  In  the 
duties  of  the  treasurerships  which  you  have  intrusted  to  me, 
she  still  sits  patiently  by  my  side,  examining  and  arranging  my 
letters,  and  adding  up  the  columns  of  figures,  to  see  that  no 
error  has  been  made  which  my  less  viligant  eye  had  overlooked. 
And  so  by  day,  and  so  by  night,  one  whom  it  is  right  that  "her 
husband  should  praise  her,"  helps  me  to  make  not  two  hours 
only,  but  many  hours  out  of  one.  She,  too,  has  given  up  the 
pleasures  of  that  society  for  which,  I  think  I  may  at  least  be 
permitted  to  say,  she  is  not  unfitted.  She  has  done  all  this  so 
that  I  might  do  double  work — that  I  might  perform  the  duties 
which  I  think  God  has  laid  upon  me.  And  yet,  it  has  come  to 
this,  that  because  she  has  so  done,  because  we  have  united  in 
reverently  laying  upon  the  altar  of  God  our  whole  strength  and 
all  our  time,  that  my  name  (and  my  name  is  her  name)  is  made 
a  byword  to  be  mocked  at ! 

But,  it  is  reiterated,  I  am  making  too  much  money!  As  I 
said  before,  I  do  make  a  good  deal  of  money.  I  get  paid  for  all 
this  work.  Is  it  wrong  that  I  should  get  paid  for  it  ?  But  what 
do  I  do  with  my  money  ?  In  reply  to  such  a  question,  I  might 
say,  "It  is  my  money ;  I  earned  it ;  and  it  is  none  of  your  busi- 
ness what  I  do  with  it."  But  before  the  Church  of  God,  as  I 
think  I  am  now  standing,  I  assume  no  such  attitude.  I  have 
never  told  any  but  my  most  intimate  friends — those  to  whom  I 
intrust  everything — what  I  did  with  my  money.  But  what  am 
I  doing  with  it?    Are  not  the  Trustees  of  the  Southwestern 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


551 


Depository  right  in  their  opinion  that  the  publication  of  a 
religious  newspaper  is  one  important  means  of  glorifying  God? 
And  does  not  the  Synod  of  Mississippi  do  well  to  appropriate 
so  much  of  the  funds  in  the  hands  of  these  Trustees  as  may  be 
necessary  to  carry  on  that  noble  project?  Were  not  the  friends 
of  religious  literature  right,  a  few  years  ago,  in  collecting  and 
expending  ten  or  twelve  thousand  dollars  to  establish  a  religious 
journal  in  the  southern  part  of  this  State?  Were  they  not 
seeking  to  glorify  God  in  a  praiseworthy  way?  Moderator,  I 
cannot  establish  and  carry  on  a  newspaper  for  nothing,  any 
more  than  any  one  else;  and  I  have  (God  forbid  that  I  should 
boast ;  I  do  not  boast  of  it ;  but  I  am  forced  to  speak  of  these 
things  in  vindication  of  my  character,  which  is  so  dear  to  me,) 
— I  have  spent  between  thirteen  and  fourteen  thousand  dollars 
of  my  own  hard-earned  money  in  establishing  and  bringing  to 
its  present  condition  the  Southern  Presbyterian,  and  between 
three  and  four  thousand  in  continuing  the  Southern  Presby- 
terian Revieiv.  Have  I  sinned  in  so  doing?  Have  I  sinned 
against  God  in  making  these  efforts  to  promote  his  glory,  as  I 
firmly  believe  these  periodicals  have  tended  to  do? 

I  would  trespass  a  little  while  longer  upon  your  time.  Many 
other  things  have  been  said — whispered — with  regard  to  me. 
Would  God  they  were  brought  forward  here  in  the  open  Assem- 
bly !    I  will  not  turn  aside  now  to  notice  them. 

I  am  glad  that  I  appear  in  this  Assembly,  not  only  for  the 
reason  I  have  given,  but  for  others  as  well.  A  pale  and  delicate 
boy — scarcely  more  than  a  boy — twenty-two  years  ago  landed 
upon  the  southern  shore  of  this  State.  He  had  not  one  friend 
within  hundreds  and  hundreds  of  miles ;  but  he  believed  that  in 
this  and  in  the  contiguous  States,  though  he  was  born  across 
the  Atlantic  on  a  foreign  shore,  there  would  be  those  who  would 
welcome  him  in  due  time,  if  he  was  worthy  of  welcome.  And 
I  have  been  welcomed.  And  I  stand  not  now  before  strangers, 
but  before  those  who  have  been  observing  my  course  from  that 
day  to  this,  and  who  have  without  ceasing  bestowed  upon  me 
every  mark  of  confidence  and  affection.  I  am  happy  to  see  in 
one  of  the  members  of  this  Assembly  a  member  of  the  church 
with  which  I  first  united  in  this  State  soon  after  I  reached  it — 
the  elder  who  is  now  representing  the  Presbytery  of  Tombeck- 


552 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


bee  [Mr.  R.  F.  Houston].  The  beloved  brother  who  is  sitting 
before  me,  now  from  Lexington,  Virginia,  [Rev.  Dr.  J.  L. 
Kirkpatrick,]  was  the  first  minister  in  this  State  to  extend  to 
me  the  elements  of  the  broken  body  and  shed  blood  of  our 
ascended  Redeemer.  Father  McCorkle,  who  is  present  in  this 
house,  though  not  a  member  of  the  Assembly,  was  the  first, 
along  with  other  brethren,  twenty  years  ago,  to  intrust  to  me 
the  first  official  position  which  I  ever  held  in  the  Church. 
Father  Wilson,  and  others  who  are  here  from  the  Synod  of 
Georgia,  more  than  eighteen  years  ago  called  me  to  a  still 
higher  position.  And  here,  let  me  say,  I  never  thrust  myself 
higher.  I  never  sought  any  office  of  honor  or  profit  which  I 
have  ever  received ;  and  I  have  received  many  from  the  Church, 
and  I  have  received  the  offer  of  many  from  the  different  States. 
And  so  I  have  gone  on,  step  by  step ;  and  I  rejoice  that  there 
are  multitudes  of  brethren  here  who  have  been  observing  my 
course  day  by  day.  There  are  a  number  of  my  students  here, 
too — an  unbroken  succession  from  1853  to  this  day — those 
whom  I  have  delighted  to  take  by  the  hand  and  lead  in  the  paths 
of  knowledge,  whether  secular  or  sacred.  To  them  I  appeal, 
whether  I  have  ever  neglected  any  of  my  duties  performed 
under  their  daily  scrutiny.  It  is  not  before  strangers  that  I 
stand,  therefore,  though  that  boy  was  a  stranger.  It  is  before 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States,  which  has  for  many  years  and  in  many  ways  honored 
me  with  its  confidence.  I  beg  you  that  you  will  not  withdraw 
your  confidence,  unless  you  see  good  reason  so  to  do.  But  as 
you  opened  your  arms  to  receive  the  young  foreigner  and  con- 
fided in  him,  so  now  thrust  him  from  your  embrace,  and  cast 
him  down  to  the  lowest  depths  of  the  infamy  which  he  deserves, 
if  he  has  proved  unworthy — if  he  has  betrayed  any  of  the  trusts 
which  you  have  so  lavishly  confided  to  him. 

But,  Moderator,  I  beg  that  you  will  not  by  any  neglect,  by 
" faint  praise",  by  any  praise  accompanied  with  exceptions, 
unless  you  now  go  fully  into  the  investigation  of  the  exceptions, 
leave  any  stain  upon  the  name  I  bear.  Moderator,  that  name 
is  very  dear  to  me.  In  1525,  in  the  western  part  of  Scotland, 
Patrick  Wodrow,  just  after  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation, 
began  to  preach  the  same  glorious  gospel  that  it  has  been  your 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


553 


privilege  so  long  to  preach.  At  the  close  of  the  "Revolution", 
in  1688,  James  Wodrow  was  made  the  first  Professor  of 
Theology  in  the  University  of  Glasgow,  after  he  had  been 
hiding  from  his  persecutors,  preaching  the  gospel  as  he  might, 
for  twenty-five  years.  You  are  indebted  to  Robert  Wodrow 
for  the  Annals  of  Scotland,  in  so  far  as  relates  to  the  memo- 
rials of  those  days  of  bloody  persecution  that  have  come  down 
to  us  a  precious  heritage.  The  venerable  Thomas  Wodrow, 
now  under  my  own  roof,  has  been  preaching  the  gospel  from 
the  Orkney  Islands  to  the  south  of  England,  from  the  snows 
of  Canada  to  the  warm  plains  of  South  Carolina,  for  more  than 
fifty  years.  Another  Thomas  Woodrow  has  offered  his  purse 
to  this  Church  through  me;  and  this  Church  through  me  has 
received  it.  Moderator,  the  name  is  dear  to  me ;  and  I  would 
fain  transmit  it  without  a  stain  to  the  little  band  of  prattlers 
now  at  my  fireside — to  the  four  little  ones  who  for  these  past 
weeks  have  been  gathering  around  me,  attracted  by  the  conver- 
sation of  their  elders,  and  asking  questions  with  their  eyes  full 
of  wonder — "What  is  this?  what  are  they  saying  about  you? 
what  do  they  mean  by  a  'bond  disappearing  from  the  treasury'  ? 
And  do  they  say  you  took  money  twice  for  the  same  thing? 
What  do  they  mean  by  these  things  which  we  are  hearing?" 
And  then,  "Do  they  mean  that  you  took  the  Church's  money? 
that  you  have  been  doing  wicked  things?  You — you?"  And 
then  they  cluster  around  me,  twining  their  little  arms  around 
my  neck  with  loving  caresses  to  shield  me  from  harm,  if  there 
is  no  one  else  to  protect  my  fair  name.  And  shall  that  name  be 
dishonored  which  she  whose  "works  praise  her",  in  the  proudest 
hour  of  my  life  consented  to  receive  as  her  own?  Shall  I  be 
permitted  to  transmit  to  these  little  ones  an  honored  name?  or 
shall  it  be  tarnished  by  such  rumors  ;  by  such  attacks  ;  by  such — 
I  will  not  characterise  them.  Is  it,  is  it,  fathers  and  brethren, 
to  be  my  fate  to  transmit  this  honored  name  received  from 
honored  ancestors  to  a  disgraced  posterity?  I  appeal  to  you, 
fathers  and  brethren,  to  judge  whether  I  have  deserved  this  at 
your  hands. 

The  following  substitute  for  the  Special  Committee's  report 
was  offered  by  Dr.  Kirkpatrick,  after  it  had  been  approved  by 
Drs.  Wilson  and  Woodrow,  and  was  adopted  by  the  Assembly : 


554 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Resolved,  That  the  General  Assembly  having  received  the 
report  of  the  special  committee  appointed  to  investigate  the 
charges  or  complaints  respecting  the  official  conduct  of  the 
Secretary  and  the  Treasurer  of  the  Executive  Committees  of 
Foreign  Missions  and  of  Sustentation,  in  compliance  with  the 
request  made  by  those  officers,  and  having  received  full  and 
explicit  information  concerning  the  several  matters  involved  in 
said  charges  or  complaints,  does  not  deem  it  necessary  to  take 
any  further  action  in  the  premises  than  simply  to  declare,  as  it 
does  hereby  declare,  in  the  most  emphatic  and  unqualified 
terms,  that  it  finds  nothing  in  any  of  the  facts  brought  to  its 
view  to  shake,  but  much  to  strengthen  the  confidence  hitherto 
reposed  in  the  fidelity  of  the  said  officers  to  the  trusts  com- 
mitted to  them,  and  in  their  wise,  vigilant,  and  successful 
management  thereof. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


555 


Editorials  on  Various  Subjects. 


Anti-Instrumental  Music  Convention. 

Two  weeks  ago  a  Convention  was  held  at  Allegheny.  Pa., 
by  a  number  of  ministers  and  elders  of  the  United  Presby- 
terian Church  who  are  opposed  to  the  use  of  instrumental 
music  in  the  public  worship  of  God.  That  Church  has  for 
some  time  been  agitated  on  the  subject;  but  at  last  it  decided 
that  the  question  whether  or  not  the  organ  might  be  introduced 
should  be  left  to  each  individual  congregation.  Of  course,  this 
was  a  declaration  that  the  use  of  instrumental  music  is  not  in 
itself  sinful,  and  therefore  it  was  a  giving  up  of  one  of  the 
distinctive  principles  of  that  Church.  This  action  has  from 
the  first  been  strenuously  opposed  by  a  large  minority.  They 
have  endeavored  through  the  courts  of  the  Church  to  reverse 
the  action  taken;  and  failing  in  this,  they  are  holding  conven- 
tions to  consider  what  should  be  done. 

At  the  Convention  just  held  they  formed  an  association  to 
be  known  as  the  United  Presbyterian  Association  of  Xorth 
America,  whose  object  shall  be  "to  maintain  and  promote  purity 
in  doctrine  and  simplicity  in  worship  in  the  United  Presbyterian 
Church."  The  reason  assigned  for  the  formation  of  the  Asso- 
ciation is  that  the  ''General  Assembly  deliberately  set  aside  and 
annulled  the  church  doctrine  with  regard  to  the  use  of  instru- 
mental music  in  the  church.'' 

The  following  is  the  principal  part  of  the  declaration  of  prin- 
ciples adopted : 

"2.  Believing  instrumental  music  in  connexion  with  the  wor- 
ship of  God  to  be  without  the  authority  of  divine  appointment, 
under  the  Xew  Testament  dispensation,  and,  therefore,  a 
corruption  of  that  worship,  it  is  our  duty  to  refuse  in  any  way 
to  countenance  or  support  its  use,  and  we  hereby  counsel  all 
our  brethren  to  stand  firm  and  not  defile  or  wound  their  con- 
sciences by  any  compliance  with  that  which  is  contrary  to 
conscience,  or  in  regard  to  which  conscience  is  not  clear." 

The  action  of  the  Convention  is  to  be  laid  before  the  next 
General  Assembly,  after  which  the  newly- formed  Association 
will  hold  its  first  meeting  to  "take  proper  action  to  meet  the 


556 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


case  and  carry  out  the  purposes  of  the  Convention  to  maintain 
the  principles  of  the  United  Presbyterian  Church." 

This  seems  to  mean  that  if  the  General  Assembly  shall  not 
rescind  its  former  action,  the  members  of  the  Association  will 
withdraw  from  the  Church  and  form  a  new  organisation; 
though  on  this  point  the  debate  showed  a  diversity  of  opinion. 

One  reason  why  this  subject  is  of  interest  in  the  South  is  that 
the  agitation  in  the  United  Presbyterian  Assembly  seems  to  be 
one  of  the  main  difficulties  in  the  way  of  negotiations  for  union 
between  that  Assembly  and  the  Synod  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Presbyterian  Church  in  the  South,  with  which  in  many 
respects  our  relations  have  been  so  close.  We  suppose  our 
Associate  Reformed  brethren  to  be  conscientiously  opposed  to 
the  use  of  instrumental  music  in  public  worship ;  and  if  so,  they 
could  not  very  well  unite  with  a  body  whose  present  principles 
would  do  violence  to  these  conscientious  convictions.  We 
cannot  guess  what  they  would  do  should  a  new  secession  body 
be  formed  on  what  seems  to  us  to  be  a  rather  narrow  basis. 
We  think  it  is  very  probable  that  the  same  diversity  of  opinion 
prevails  among  the  Associate  Reformed  Presbyterians  that  is  so 
greatly  disquieting  the  United  Presbyterians  in  the  North. 


Congregational  Singing  and  Musical  Reform. 

Whatever  may  be  said  of  the  other  parts  of  our  public  wor- 
ship, it  is  certainly  true  that  congregational  singing  stands  sadly 
in  need  of  improvement.  There  are  no  doubt  many  causes  for 
this;  amongst  them  we  suppose  that  one  is  that  our  people 
cannot  generally  read  music.  If  so,  then  anything  that  would 
make  such  reading  easier  should  be  heartily  welcomed. 

For  some  years  we  have  seen  it  claimed  that  a  new  and  very 
easy  way  of  reading  music  has  been  invented,  called  the  "Tonic 
Sol-Fa  System" ;  and  while  we  cannot  say  anything  of  it  of  our 
own  knowledge,  we  have  seen  it  so  highly  commended  by 
trustworthy  writers  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  that  we 
cannot  but  believe  that  it  must  be  very  useful.  The  Rev.  John 
Curwen,  the  inventor  of  the  system,  says :  "Our  aim  is  to  make 
all  the  people  and  their  children  sing ;  and  to  make  them  sing 
for  noble  ends."    And  the  trustworthy  persons   we  have 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


referred  to  say  that  the  system  largely  helps  in  reaching  this 
end.  .  .  . 


The  South  Carolina  Baptist  Convention. 

The  State  Convention  of  the  Baptist  denomination  in  South 
Carolina  met  in  this  place  last  Thursday  morning,  and 
adjourned  on  Sunday  night  to  meet  next  December  at  Sumter. 
About  two  hundred  members  were  present,  besides  a  number 
of  visiting  brethren,  consisting  of  secretaries  of  foreign  and 
home  missions,  a  theological  professor,  a  returned  missionary 
from  China,  and  other  Baptist  ministers  from  other  States. 

The  proceedings  were  very  much  like  those  of  a  Presbyterian 
Synod,  and  the  subjects  considered  were  much  the  same — ■ 
Missions,  Education.  Publication,  etc.  The  discussion  of  these 
topics  alternated  with  preaching  and  devotional  exercises. 
There  is  one  conspicuous  difference,  however,  between  the  Con- 
vention and  a  Synod — in  the  former  no  judicial  case  is  ever 
heard,  as  our  Baptist  brethren  recognise  no  ecclesiastical 
authority  above  that  of  the  "church'',  or  single  congregation. 
But  there  are  Boards  and  Standing  Committees  much  like  our 
own.  exercising  the  same  powers. 

The  Rev.  T.  P.  Bell,  formerly  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian 
office,  now  Assistant  Secretary  of  Foreign  Missions,  and  the 
Rev.  F.  C.  Hickson,  who  has  been  compelled  to  return  from 
China  by  ill-health,  addressed  the  Convention  on  Foreign  Mis- 
sions. The  contributions  to  this  object  by  the  churches  in 
South  Carolina  for  the  year  amounted  to  $8,368,  or  about  13 
cents  per  member,  as  it  would  sometimes  be  stated.  But  this 
would  be  plainly  an  unfair  way  of  stating  it;  for  we  have  no 
doubt  it  is  true  of  Baptists,  as  it  certainly  is  of  Presbyterians, 
that  the  contributions  for  Missions  come  from  a  small  minority 
of  the  members.  Besides  the  amount  mentioned,  other  contri- 
butions were  made  by  the  Women's  Missionary  Associations; 
but  we  do  not  know  the  amount. 

The  Rev.  Eh\  Tichenor.  Secretary  of  the  Home  Mission 
Board,  made  an  address  on  Home  Missions. 

The  affairs  of  Furman  University  elicited  great  interest. 
Spirited  addresses  were  made  by  the  President.  Rev.  Dr. 


558 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Charles  Manly,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Dickinson,  of  Richmond,  Va.,  and 
others.  Efforts  are  in  progress  to  endow  this  institution  more 
fully,  which  ought  to  meet  with  early  and  entire  success.  A 
body  like  the  Baptist  denomination  in  South  Carolina,  which  is 
nearly  half  as  large  as  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church  from 
Mason  and  Dixon's  line  to  the  Rio  Grande,  ought  surely  to  find 
no  difficulty  in  amply  endowing  an  institution  of  the  highest 
grade. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Basil  Manly,  older  brother  of  President  Manly, 
gave  an  account  of  the  condition  and  prospects  of  the  Southern 
Baptist  Theological  Seminary  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  in  which  he 
is  an  honored  Professor.  He  stated  that  the  endowment  of  the 
Seminary  is  now  $300,000  and  that  a  building  is  In  process  of 
erection  which  is  to  cost  $100,000.  We  believe  the  funds  for 
this  purpose  have  already  been  secured.  Dr.  Manly  chiefly 
urged  in  his  address  the  importance  of  providing  funds  for 
aiding  students  for  the  ministry,  while  they  are  acquiring  their 
education. 

The  two  Drs.  Manly  are  sons  of  the  late  Rev.  Dr.  Basil 
Manly,  long  President  of  the  University  of  Alabama.  And  the 
line  of  prominent  teachers  is  continuing  in  the  third  generation, 
as  a  son  of  the  present  Dr.  Basil  Manly  has  recently  been 
appointed  Professor  in  a  North  Carolina  college. 

Col.  J.  A.  Hoyt,  editor  of  the  Baptist  Courier,  was  President 
of  the  Convention.  All  the  members  are  of  equal  rank;  and 
therefore  the  choice  of  presiding  officers  is  not  restricted  to 
ministerial  members,  as  was  the  case  with  us  until  last  spring 
when  the  true  Presbyterian  doctrine  was  recognised  and  made 
part  of  our  constitution. 

This  Convention  was  organised  in  this  city  sixty-five  years 
ago.  In  the  statement  of  general  principles  then  adopted,  it  is 
said  that  "the  grand  objects  of  the  Convention  shall  be  the  pro- 
motion of  evangelical  and  useful  knowledge,  by  means  of 
religious  education;  the  support  of  missionary  service  among 
the  destitute ;  and  the  cultivation  of  measures  promotive  of  the 
true  interests  of  the  churches  of  Christ  in  general,  and  of  their 
union,  love,  and  harmony  in  particular." 

The  limits  of  its  authority  are  carefully  guarded  in  the  fol- 
lowing words: 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


559 


"The  Convention  shall  recognise  the  independence  and  liberty 
of  the  churches  of  Christ,  and,  consequently,  shall  not  in  any 
case  arbitrarily  interfere  with  their  spiritual  or  secular  inter- 
ests ;  but,  when  requested,  will  be  considered  as  under  obligation 
to  afford  them  any  assistance  which  may  be  in  their  power." 

From  that  day  to  this  the  denomination  has  been  rapidly 
growing,  until  now  its  membership  in  the  State  numbers  about 
65,000,  or  nearly  five  times  the  membership  of  the  Synod  of 
South  Carolina.  And  it  has  grown  not  merely  in  numbers,  but 
in  intelligence  and  active  Christian  zeal  for  the  welfare  of 
others.  The  improvement  in  the  education  of  its  ministry  is 
said  to  be  very  great.  May  it  continue  to  grow  in  numbers,  in 
godliness,  in  learning,  in  zeal  for  the  conversion  of  all  man- 
kind, at  home  and  abroad. 

This  sincere  desire  we  entertain  and  express,  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  we  regard  the  denomination  as  not  yet  having 
reached  the  truth  in  all  things.  We  believe  our  Baptist  breth- 
ren to  be  in  error  as  to  their  theory  of  church  government ;  we 
say  their  theory — for  in  many  respects  they  are  practically 
Presbyterian.  So  we  think  they  are  wrong  on  many  points 
connected  with  baptism — we  do  not  care  to  enumerate  these. 
But  what  are  all  these  points  of  difference  when  compared  with 
our  points  of  agreement?  We  do  not  say  they  are  unimport- 
ant— no  part  of  God's  truth  is  unimportant;  but  we  do  say 
that  they  are  as  nothing  when  compared  with  the  glorious 
truths  on  which  we  are  agreed.  Leaving  out  the  subjects  we 
have  alluded  to,  we  are  absolutely  at  one  with  our  Baptist 
brethren  on  all  the  grand  doctrines  of  our  common  Christianity ; 
why,  then,  should  we  suffer  our  comparatively  slight  differences 
to  keep  our  hearts  from  rejoicing  in  their  prosperity,  and  from 
praying  that  it  may  constantly  increase? 


Punishment  or  Chastisement. 

The  Christian  Index,  in  a  vigorous  article,  calls  attention  to 
the  idea,  advocated  by  some  members  of  the  "National  Prison 
Congress",  which  recently  met  at  Atlanta,  that  the  design  of 
all  punishment  is  reformatory,  and  it  strongly  and  very  properly 
condemns  it.  A  false  philanthropy  has  long  maintained  this  idea, 


560 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


denying  the  vindicatory  character  of  punishment,  and  main- 
taining that  the  infliction  of  suffering  should  always  have  as  its 
end  the  reclaiming  of  the  offender — that  there  is  and  should  be 
no  distinction  between  chastisement  and  punishment.  This 
idea  should  be  classed  with  that  which  represents  drunkenness, 
not  as  a  sin,  but  as  a  disease,  and  holds  that  even  theft,  murder, 
and  so  on,  are  only  different  forms  of  disease ;  and,  therefore, 
that  those  affected  with  them  should  be  pitied  and  not  blamed. 
Such  ugly  words  should  not  be  applied  to  their  maladies ;  they 
ought  rather  to  be  called  dipsomania,  kleptomania,  etc. ;  and 
the  sufferers  should  be  treated  with  special  gentleness  and  care. 

The  only  thorough  way  to  remove  these  errors  is  to  secure 
the  recognition  of  the  truth  which  God  proclaims  that  in  his 
sight  these  things  are  sins;  that  sin  is  an  abominable  thing 
which  he  hates ;  and  that  sin,  when  it  is  finished,  bringeth  forth 
death. 


A  Merry  Christmas. 

Before  the  Southern  Presbyterian  appears  again,  Christmas 
day  will  have  come  and  gone.  This  is  the  season  of  universal 
good  cheer.  Of  course,  we  attach  no  importance  to  it  as  a  day 
to  be  observed  religiously.  Our  Church  does  not  believe  in 
Christmas  in  this  sense.  But  the  general  throwing  off  of  busi- 
ness cares,  the  many  delightful  family  reunions,  and  the 
exchange  of  tokens  of  loving  remembrance  between  friends, 
make  this  holiday  season  one  of  the  most  enjoyable  of  the  year. 
This  is  especially  the  case  in  those  homes  where  there  are  young 
children.  To  the  children  there  should  be  no  such  happy  time 
as  Christmas.  Their  elders  find  their  own  enjoyment  in  mak- 
ing this  period  as  pleasant  to  these  as  possible. 

In  the  midst  of  their  festivities  we  would  remind  our  readers 
that  there  are  many  little  ones  whose  Christmas  may  be  dull  and 
joyless.  There  are  many  homes  that  may  not  be  brightened  by 
the  arrival  of  jolly  Santa  Claus.  Can  you  not  by  kind 
thoughtfulness  help  to  diffuse  more  universally  the  happiness 
that  you  yourselves  enjoy  so  abundantly  at  this  time?  "The 
poor  ye  have  always  with  you."  Do  not  forget  them  at  this 
glad  season  of  the  year. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


561 


In  conclusion,  the  Southern  Presbyterian  wishes  each  and 
every  one  of  its  readers  a  Merry  Christmas  and  a  Happy  New 
Year. 


What  Shall  We  Get  eor  Our  Children? 

We  are  often  asked  by  our  friends  in  various  parts  of  the 
country,  "What  secular  magazine  or  paper  would  you  advise  us 
to  procure  for  our  children?" 

We  are  hardly  willing  to  take  the  responsibility  of  advising; 
but  we  do  not  hesitate  to  give  our  correspondents  the  names  of 
some  which  we  regard  as  eminently  suitable.  And  here  let  us 
say  that  while  we  are  deeply  interested  in  our  little  friends  who 
may  be  benefited  by  our  suggestions,  what  we  are  now  writing 
is  wholly  disinterested,  so  far  as  the  publishers  of  the  periodi- 
cals named  are  concerned.  We  do  not  "exchange"  with  them, 
nor  are  they  sent  to  us  "free" ;  when  we  want  them  we  subscribe 
and  pay  for  them  as  any  one  else  does.  We  deem  it  necessary 
to  say  this,  because  many  commendatory  notices  which  we  see 
are  advertisements,  paid  for  in  one  way  or  another,  under  the 
guise  of  genuine  editorial  opinions. 

The  three  we  would  suggest,  then,  are — 

1.  The  Youth's  Companion.  Published  weekly  by  Perry 
Mason  &  Co.,  Boston,  Mass.    Price  $1.75  a  year. 

2.  Wide  Awake.  Published  monthly  by  D.  Lothrop  &  Co., 
Boston,  Mass.    Price  $3.00  a  year. 

3.  Pansy.  Published  by  D.  Lothrop  &  Co.,  Boston,  Mass. 
Price  $1.00  a  year. 

We  have  always  found  these  clean,  attractive,  instructive. 
The  latter  is  more  particularly  adapted  to  young  children ;  the 
first  two  are  attractive  and  instructive  to  young  people  of  all 
ages,  from  eight  to  eighty  or  more. 


Criminal  Sentimentalism. 

There  seems  to  be  a  growing  disposition  in  this  country  to 
make  heroes  of  the  vilest  criminals.  Not  only  are  the  courts 
where  murderers  are  tried  crowded  with  sensation  seekers,  and 
the  minutest  details  of  the  proceedings  telegraphed  all  over  the 
land  to  satisfy  a  morbid  and  vicious  curiosity,  but  the  criminals 
36— w 


562 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


themselves  are  often  made  the  recipients  of  flowers  and  are 
otherwise  lionised  by  idle  and  silly  people. 

A  notable  instance  of  this  is  afforded  by  the  recent  trial  and 
condemnation  of  the  Anarchists  in  Chicago.  After  every  legal 
quibble  had  been  resorted  to,  in  order  to  clear  them,  they  were 
found  guilty  of  murder  and  condemned  to  death.  Appeals 
being  taken,  the  execution  of  the  sentence  is  at  present  stayed. 
All  during  the  trials  there  was,  as  our  readers  will  remember,  a 
most  sickening  display  of  silly  sentimentalism  on  the  part  of 
many  persons.  Since  then  these  condemned  murderers  have 
been  regarded  as  heroes  and  martyrs.  They  have  been  elected 
"honorary"  members  of  various  organisations.  And  now  the 
daughter  of  a  wealthy  Presbyterian  family  in  Chicago  wishes 
to  be  married  to  one  of  these  condemned  murderers  within  the 
very  shadow  of  the  gallows!    Could  folly  farther  go? 


A  Dark  Future. 

Our  Northern  brethren  are  beginning  to  awake  to  the  ruin  of 
their  whole  social  state  with  which  their  loose  ways  about 
divorce  are  threatening  them.  Hitherto  they  have  been  very 
much  preoccupied  with  the  sins  of  their  neighbors  of  the  South. 
Slavery  they  took  great  pains  to  point  out  to  us  was  "the  sum 
of  all  villainies",  and  disloyalty  to  the  Union  stood  next  to  it. 
They  had  to  abolish  the  one  and  put  down  the  other  vi  et  armis; 
which  undertaking  kept  them  very  busy  for  a  long  time ;  and, 
lo,  meanwhile  a  manifestly  much  worse  thing  than  either  has 
crept  in  unawares  into  their  very  citadel.  Accordingly,  the 
question  with  them  now  is  not  of  "our  brother  in  black,"  nor  of 
the  stability  of  the  federal  government,  nor  of  the  scarlet  sins 
of  other  people,  but  of  the  safety  of  their  own  homes  and 
families.  The  Southern  States  have  no  goodness  to  boast 
of,  and  South  Carolina,  of  course,  is  the  wickedest  of 
them  all;  but  still  the  Interior  acknowledged  lately  that  "this 
corrupting  plague  spot  seems  to  have  largely  confined  itself  to 
this  side  of  the  old  line  dividing  the  North  from  the  South", 
and  it  is  a  fact,  that  except  under  the  horrible  misrule  of  recon- 
struction, divorce  was  never  known  in  South  Carolina. 

We  are  not  disposed  to  jeer  at  our  friends  who  have  been  so 
faithful  in  pointing  out  our  faults  and  failings.    The  subject  of 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


563 


these  present  dangers  is  too  fearfully  serious.  And  in  all  the 
appalling  evils  that  threaten  the  Northern  people  we  cannot 
escape  bearing  our  portion.  And  so  we  very  sincerely  rejoice 
that  they  begin  to  be  aware  how  imminent  is  their  complete 
ruin  as  a  people  and  ours  with  them. 

Here  are  some  of  the  alarming  facts  to  which  the  Interior 
calls  attention : 

"In  the  State  of  Connecticut  twenty-four  years  ago  divorces 
averaged  scarcely  one  hundred  a  year ;  they  now  average  more 
than  four  hundred.  In  1860  Massachusetts  reported  only  243 
cases  of  divorce;  in  1883  the  number  had  increased  to  655.  In 
Vermont  we  find  94  cases  in  1860,  and  197  in  1878.  In  New 
Hampshire  the  number  increased  from  107  cases  in  1860,  to  339 
in  1880.  In  Maine,  and  in  Rhode  Island,  the  percentage  of 
increase  of  divorces  was  about  the  same,  and  it  must  not  be 
forgotten  that  these  large  increases  in  the  number  of  divorces 
were  neither  the  results  nor  the  accompaniments  of  any  cor- 
responding or  very  considerable  increase  of  population.  Look- 
ing over  the  Northern  States  beyond  New  England,  *  *  *  * 
we  are  met  by  the  appalling  fact  that,  in  some  parts  of  the 
country,  divorces  have  reached  the  amazing  and  terrible  rates 
of  one  for  every  five  marriages.  Surely  no  intelligent  and 
thoughtful  person  can  read  such  statistics  as  these  without  a 
consideration  of  the  moral  and  social  destruction  to  which  we 
are  drifting  so  rapidly,  and  of  the  measures  which  afford  the 
most  reliable  hopes  of  relief  from  the  impending  danger." 

The  Interior  adds : 

"We  have  come  to  the  position  from  which  marriage,  which 
used  to  be,  and  still  should  be,  regarded  as  the  holiest  and  most 
indissoluble  relation  into  which  two  people  can  possibly  enter 
with  each  other,  has  come  to  be  regarded  merely  as  a  temporary 
copartnership,  convenient  for  the  time,  but  dissoluble  at  the 
whim  or  convenience  of  either  of  the  parties.  The  idea  of  its 
divine  origin  has  become  almost  entirely  disregarded  and  lost." 

Surely,  this  is  an  alarming  state  of  things.  We  can  think  of 
nothing  whatever  which  calls  more  loudly  for  the  attention  of 
both  the  State  and  the  Church.  Our  Chicago  contemporary 
cries  out,  and  well  it  may,  for  "the  pulpit,  the  religious  press, 
the  decent  secular  press,  and  all  Christian  people",  to  come  to 
the  rescue  of  the  marriage  relation  amongst  them.  It  urges 
ministers  (and  we  marvel  that  they  should  need  such  urging) 
"to  refuse  to  remarry  those  divorced  on  other  than  scriptural 
grounds."    By  such  and  similar  means  it  says,  "we  may  hope 


564 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


to  prevent  the  threatened  extinction  of  the  family  and  the 
home." 


Rev.  Charles  H.  Spurgeon. 

A  few  days  ago  this  eminent  preacher  of  the  pure  gospel 
withdrew  from  the  Baptist  Union  of  England.  The  reasons 
for  this  step  are  that  amongst  the  members  there  are  those  who 
deny  essential  doctrines  of  Christianity,  that  the  Union  makes 
no  attempt  to  remove  such  persons  from  its  membership,  that 
therefore  responsibility  for  the  anti-Christian  views  held  rests 
upon  the  Union  and  upon  all  who  consent  to  remain  members 
of  it.  The  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of  the 
Sacred  Scriptures  is  one  of  those  which  are  denied.  This 
single  fact  would  justify,  and  in  our  opinion  require,  any  Chris- 
tian believer  to  do  as  Mr.  Spurgeon  has  done.  But  this  is  not 
all.  Members  in  good  standing  in  the  Union  reject  also  the 
doctrines  of  the  imputation  of  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin  and  of 
Christ's  righteousness,  of  the  vicarious  atonement,  and  of  ever- 
lasting punishment,  and  maintain  the  anti-scriptural  doctrine 
of  a  second  probation.  Hence  we  cannot  be  surprised  that  so 
sound  a  believer  as  Mr.  Spurgeon  should  refuse  longer  to  have 
fellowship  with  those  who  make  the  word  of  God  of  none 
effect. 

We  observe  that  the  question  has  been  asked,  Has  Mr.  Spur- 
geon ceased  to  be  a  Baptist?  By  no  means.  Each  Baptist 
congregation  is  an  independent  church,  without  ecclesiastical 
bonds  uniting  it  with  others.  A  Baptist  Union  is  not  an  eccle- 
siastical body,  but  merely  a  voluntary  association.  Therefore 
withdrawal  from  it  has  no  ecclesiastical  significance.  Mr. 
Spurgeon  believes  now  what  he  has  believed  for  the  last  thirty 
years,  both  as  to  the  mode  of  baptism  and  as  to  form  of  govern- 
ment. But,  though  he  still  entertains  these  views,  what  is  of 
infinitely  greater  importance,  he  still  believes  and  preaches 
with  undiminished  power  and  clearness,  as  he  has  done  from 
his  youth,  that  the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God  and  that  the 
doctrines  contained  in  our  Confession  of  Faith  are  those  which 
are  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


565 


The  Late  Professor  Gray. 

In  the  death  of  Prof.  Asa  Gray  of  Harvard  University,  says 
the  Christian  Intelligencer,  not  America  alone,  but  the  world, 
loses  one  of  its  great  scientists.  Few  men  have  contributed 
more  to  his  special  department,  that  of  botany,  than  he.  His 
researches  and  writings  cover  nearly  the  whole  field,  and  his 
text  books  have  made  his  name  familiar  to  every  student.  For 
forty  years  he  has  been  preparing  a  descriptive  work  upon  the 
plants  of  North  America,  which,  though  scarcely  more  than 
half  completed,  is  a  monument  to  his  industry  and  scientific 
attainments.  To  him,  more  than  to  any  other  student  and 
investigator,  is  due  the  establishment  and  acceptance  of  the 
natural  system  in  botanical  science.  Along  with  most  botanists, 
Prof.  Gray  early  accepted  the  Darwinian  hypothesis,  yet  ever 
held  it  in  a  form  consistent  with  belief  not  only  in  a  personal 
God,  but  in  the  creeds  of  the  Christian  Church.  Not  least 
among  his  just  titles  to  fame  is  the  work  he  did  in  thus  recon- 
ciling what  so  many,  both  among  scientists  and  Christians, 
represent  as  necessarily  antagonistic.  For  forty-five  years 
Prof.  Gray  was  a  member  of  the  First  Congregational  church 
of  Cambridge,  and  his  pastor  bears  testimony  how  reverently 
and  faithfully  he  bore  his  part  in  its  worship  and  its  work.  It 
is  a  high  tribute  to  a  life  of  nearly  four  score  when  it  can  be 
said  by  his  pastor  of  many  years,  as  is  the  case  of  this  learned 
scientist,  that  "certain  as  he  is  to  live  in  his  works,  even  more 
than  for  that  which  he  has  done,  will  he  be  remembered  and 
revered  for  what  he  was." 


Is  It  Proper? 

We  are  always  sorry  to  see  such  items  as  the  following, 
which  is  taken  from  the  Central  Presbyterian.  We  cannot  help 
a  deep  sense  of  shame  that  our  Church  should  be  in  any  way 
responsible  for  such  begging  expeditions  to  the  North.  Can 
they  not  be  avoided  ?  Our  Church  may  be  poor,  but  under  all 
the  circumstances  we  do  not  think  it  should  appeal  to  the  North- 
ern churches  for  assistance.    The  Central  Presbyterian  says : 

"Rev.  J.  D.  Thomas,  evangelist  of  Montgomery  Presbytery, 
writes  to  us : 


566 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


"  'J  am  going  North  in  January,  as  agent  of  Montgomery 
Presbytery,  to  solicit  funds  to  aid  in  building  churches  along 
the  N.  &  W.  railroad.  This  is  mainly  in  Flat-top  Coal  Region 
and  adjacent  parts.  Thirty  thousand  souls  have  come  into  this 
section  in  a  few  years.  Towns  are  springing  up.  Northern 
capital  is  invested,  and  Northern  people  are  settling.  We  feel 
we  can  appeal  to  Northern  people  to  aid  in  building  churches.' 

"Mr.  Thomas  is  doing  a  good  work  in  his  Presbytery,  and  is 
worthy  of  the  fullest  confidence  wherever  he  goes." 


The  Best  Way. 

The  Sunday-School  Times  contains  the  following  clear  and 
pointed  discussion  of  the  best  methods  of  raising  money  for 
religious  purposes.  The  truthful  conclusion  reached  should  be 
carefully  considered  by  those  who  suppose  that  they  are  "giv- 
ing to  the  Lord",  when  they  are  spending  money  for  their  own 
pleasure  and  amusement. 

There  are  many  ways  of  Christian  giving ;  and,  as  a  rule,  the 
poorest  ways  are  the  most  popular,  while  the  best  ways  are  in 
least  favor.  Yet,  after  all,  in  this  field  of  effort,  as  in  every 
other,  "the  best  way  is  as  good  as  any."  A  correspondent  in 
Texas  would  like  a  statement  of  the  principles  underlying  the 
best  methods  of  giving.    He  says : 

"Doubtless  you  have  somewhere  in  the  Sunday-School  Times 
given  all  the  information  now  asked  for,  but  I  can't  find  it. 
Please  give  in  'Notes  on  Open  Letters'  a  synopsis  of  the  prin- 
ciples of  Christian  giving,  as  exercised  by  means  of  oyster 
suppers,  restaurants,  etc.  One  says,  'A  woman  may  certainly 
buy  materials  for,  and  manufacture  and  sell,  a  suit  of  clothes, 
giving  the  profits  or  the  whole  price  to  the  cause  of  Christ.  If 
so,  why  may  not  any  number  combine  and  furnish  materials 
for,  and  supply,  an  oyster  supper,  or  a  general  restaurant, 
giving  the  profits  or  the  gross  income  to  the  same  cause  ?'  The 
answer  is  made,  'If  women  may  engage  in  such  business  for  a 
week,  men  may  engage  in  it  for  a  year,  in  the  name  of  the 
church ;  and  the  church  may  aggregate  a  capital,  go  into  busi- 
ness, and  sustain  all  its  operations  from  the  income  of  such 
business'.  As  to  grab-bags,  theatricals,  and  the  like,  there 
seems  to  be  no  reasonable  doubt  as  to  their  impropriety,  not  to 
say  wickedness ;  but  in  such  legitimate  business  as  first  named, 
where's  the  impropriety  or  unscripturalness  of  its  being  done 
in  the  name  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  church?  Helping  us  to 
come  to  principles  that  will  enable  us  to  decide  these  and  all 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


567 


other  cases,  will  supply  a  need,  in  these  parts,  for  which  all 
Christians  desiring  to  walk  only  in  'the  way'  will  be  profoundly 
grateful." 

Selling  oysters  with  the  intention  of  giving  the  proceeds  to  a 
religious  enterprise  is  certainly  not  in  itself  sinful.  On  the 
contrary,  it  may  be  a  very  commendable  line  of  business.  So, 
again,  buying  and  eating  oysters  with  the  knowledge  that  the 
money  paid  for  them  is  to  go  into  a  church  treasury,  has  in 
itself  no  element  of  evil, — if  the  oysters  are  good  oysters,  and 
the  month  of  their  eating  has  an  "R"  in  it.  But  such  selling  of 
oysters  is  not  in  itself  a  gift  to  the  Lord,  even  though  the  gift 
of  its  profits  may  be  a  purpose  of  the  dealer ;  nor  is  the  eating 
of  oysters  under  such  circumstances  in  itself  a  self-denying  act 
of  beneficence,  simply  because  of  the  dealer's  purposed  use  of 
the  profits.  And  here  is  where  an  important  line  of  distinction 
is  often  lost  sight  of.  If  selling  and  buying  be  understood  to 
be  an  act  of  pure  secular  business,  apart  from  any  purposed 
use  of  the  profits  of  such  a  transaction,  there  is  no  harm  done 
through  any  proper  attention  to  legitimate  business  activities. 
But  if  selling  and  buying  be  claimed  as  in  itself  a  giving  to  the 
Lord,  the  claim  is  a  false  one,  and  there  is  harm  in  its  pressing 
or  in  its  acceptance.  If,  again,  there  be  an  attempt  to  run 
together  a  pure  business  operation  and  a  generous  act  of  benefi- 
cence, as  if  the  distinction  between  the  two  things  was  not  real 
and  positive,  there  is  harm  to  all  concerned  through  the  moral 
confusion  which  accompanies  such  blundering.  A  man,  or  a 
woman,  has  no  right  to  sell  poor  oysters  or  a  scanty  portion,  on 
the  ground  that  the  money  for  the  sale  belongs  to  the  Lord; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  a  man  or  a  woman  who  buys  and  eats  a 
good  oyster-stew,  or  a  poor  one,  and  then  charges  the  cost  of  it 
to  charity's  account,  doesn't  deceive  the  Lord  into  believing  any 
such  nonsense ;  but  if  the  oyster-eater  is  deceived  thereby,  that 
oyster-eater  is  the  worse  for  those  oysters.  Giving  is  giving, 
and  buying  or  selling  is  buying  or  selling.  Those  things  which 
God  has  made  two,  let  no  man  or  woman  call  one.  One  of  the 
crying  evils  of  to-day  is  the  confusing  of  pure  business  transac- 
tions or  self-indulging  pleasure-hunting  with  acts  of  charity. 
A  person  asks  to  be  paid  wages  or  a  salary  in  a  business  estab- 
lishment on  the  ground  that  he  or  she  needs  the  money,  whether 
competent  or  not  to  do  the  work  of  the  position  to  which  that 
remuneration  is  attached.  A  person  asks  to  have  a  composition 
accepted  by  an  editor  because  of  the  poverty  of  the  writer, 
apart  from  the  question  of  the  poverty  of  ideas  in  the  manu- 
script. A  person  is  asked  to  go  and  witness  some  private 
theatricals,  or  to  listen  to  a  concert,  or  to  attend  a  dance,  or  to 
see  a  dog-fight,  or  to  buy  a  pincushion  or  a  quart  of  peanuts,  in 
order  to  get  money  into  the  Lord's  treasury  by  that  particular 


568 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


channel.  All  this  is  all  wrong.  Its  tendency  is  evil  and  only 
evil.  It  leads  many  a  person  to  believe  that  one  ought  to 
expect  an  immediate  personal  reward  for  giving  to  the  Lord. 
It  is  as  unwise  a  policy  as  would  be  the  substituting  of  grab- 
bags  for  contribution-boxes  in  church  missionary  collections — 
sending  the  deacons  around  in  the  hour  of  church  service,  with 
grab-bags  for  the  congregation  to  grab  from ;  the  profits  going 
to  the  missionary  cause.  It  may  result  in  larger  immediate 
proceeds  of  cash,  but  the  money  that  comes  in  under  such 
circumstances  has  cost  more  than  it  is  worth. 


Prayer  for  the  General  Assembly. 

"Except  the  Lord  build  the  house,  they  labor  in  vain  that 
build  it;  except  the  Lord  keep  the  city,  the  watchman  waketh 
but  in  vain."  "If  thou  criest  after  knowledge,  and  liftest  up 
thy  voice  for  understandings,  ....  thou  shalt  then  under- 
stand the  fear  of  the  Lord,  and  find  the  knowledge  of  God. 
For  the  Lord  giveth  wisdom ;  out  of  his  mouth  cometh  knowl- 
edge and  understanding."  "If  any  of  you  lack  wisdom,  let  him 
ask  of  God,  that  giveth  to  all  men  liberally,  and  upbraideth  not ; 
and  it  shall  be  given  him." 

The  General  Assembly  of  our  Church,  recognising  these  and 
like  truths,  and  knowing  the  impossibility  of  doing  the  Lord's 
work  in  the  Lord's  way  without  his  guidance  and  help,  asks 
God's  people  to  pray  for  it.  It  "recommends  to  all  the  churches 
under  its  care  to  offer  special  prayer  during  the  devotions  of  the 
Sabbath  preceding  its  meeting  in  each  year,  that  God  would  of 
great  mercy  so  give  the  General  Assembly  the  wisdom  that 
cometh  from  above,  and  so  direct  all  its  plans,  discussions,  and 
decisions,  as  to  promote  his  own  glory  and  advance  the  kingdom 
of  Jesus  in  the  earth." 

Next  Sabbath  is  the  day  for  this  annual  concert  for  prayer. 
Shall  we  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  the  Assembly's  recommendation  and 
request? 


The  Tariff  on  Ministers. 

A  subject  that  is  just  now  receiving  a  good  deal  of  attention 
from  the  newspapers  of  this  country  and  Canada  is  the  United 
States  tariff  levied  on  ministers  of  the  gospel.    There  is  a  law 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


569 


on  the  statute  book  of  the  United  States  that  prohibits  the 
importation  of  foreign  "labor"  under  contract.  This  law  is 
very  sweeping  in  its  terms,  and  has  been  judicially  construed  to 
include  ministers  and  professors.  Thus  a  New  York  Episcopal 
church  was  sentenced  to  pay  $1,000  for  importing  an  English 
rector.  A  Presbyterian  church  in  Pennsylvania  has  called  a 
minister  from  Canada.  He  wants  to  come,  but  hesitates 
because  his  coming  will  cost  the  church  a  $1,000  fine.  The 
Roman  Catholic  University,  at  Washington,  D.  C,  recently 
asked  the  United  States  authorities  whether  they  could  import 
a  lot  of  professors  from  Europe  free  of  duty,  and  were  told: 
"No,  it  would  violate  the  alien  labor  contract  law." 

Thus  it  is  seen  that  very  many  different  individuals,  churches, 
and  institutions  of  learning  are  interested  in  this  question.  For 
ourselves,  we  do  not  believe  in  the  policy  of  such  a  law.  It  is 
even  worse  than  the  ordinary  protective  tariffs  in  favor  of 
material  "home  industries."  Free  trade  seems  to  us  a  much 
better  policy.  But  free  trade  is  not  the  American  idea,  and  this 
prohibitive  statute  is  among  the  laws  of  the  land,  and  hence 
must  be  obeyed  as  such,  not  being  sinful  in  itself. 

In  general,  when  a  high  tariff  tax  is  enforced  by  a  govern- 
ment, it  may  not  absolutely  prevent  the  importation  of  the 
taxed  article.    There  are  two  cases  possible  in  this  event : 

1.  Some  persons  may  be  found  who  are  willing  to  import  the 
article  desired,  and  pay  the  duty  demanded  by  the  government. 
The  superior  quality  of  the  imported  article  in  their  estimation 
compensates  for  its  increased  cost. 

2.  Some  persons  may  be  found  who  are  very  anxious  to  get 
the  superior  imported  article,  but  are  not  willing  to  pay  the 
duty.  Hence  they  evade  it  if  they  can.  How?  Simply  by 
importing  it  secretly — without  the  knowledge  of  the  customs 
officers.  This  process  is  called  smuggling.  It  is  generally 
regarded  by  governments  as  a  serious  offence  at  law,  and  is 
punished  accordingly. 

There  seems  to  be  some  strange  inconsistency  in  the  enforce- 
ment of  this  alien  contract  labor  law.  It  is  said  that  it  is  not 
equally  applied.  It  is  charged  that  it  is  only  enforced  against 
Protestants  and  not  against  Roman  Catholics.  Thus  the  Cen- 
tral Presbyterian  says : 


570 


DR.  JAMSS  WOODROW. 


The  officials  of  the  Treasury  Department  have  decided,  it 
seems,  that  Protestant  ministers  engaged  from  abroad,  must 
come  under  the  Contract-Labor  Law,  but  Catholic  professors 
and  priests  are  exempt.  It  may  be  law,  but  is  certainly  not 
justice. 

And  the  Philadelphia  Presbyterian  says  : 

The  Contract-Labor  Law  in  its  application  to  ministers  of 
the  gospel  and  teachers  in  institutions  of  learning  is  an  abomi- 
nation and  out  of  harmony  with  the  free  action  in  general  social 
and  religious  affairs  demanded  by  the  age  in  which  we  live. 
But  since  it  has  been  interpreted  so  rigidly,  we  believe  in  treat- 
ing all  religious  denominations  alike  in  the  matter  of  its 
enforcement.  It  is  a  shame  and  outrage  that  it  is  carefully  and 
scrupulously  enforced  where  Protestant  ministers  are  con- 
cerned, but  strained  and  evaded  to  suit  Romish  needs.  For 
instance,  the  church  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  New  York  city,  had 
to  pay  a  penalty  of  one  thousand  dollars  for  importing  its 
rector,  Rev.  E.  Walpole  Warren.  When  the  first  Presbyterian 
church  of  Erie,  Pa.,  called  from  Canada  the  Rev.  H.  C.  Ross 
to  its  pastorate,  an  embargo  was  laid  upon  the  proceeding  by 
the  civil  authorities  declaring  his  acceptance  of  the  call  a  viola- 
tion of  said  alien  Contract-Labor  Law.  But  note  how  the  case 
stands  as  respects  Rome's  importations.  Some  opposition,  it  is 
true,  was  made  to  the  coming  of  the  foreign  professors  who  are 
to  have  charge  of  their  respective  departments  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  University  at  Washington  City,  D.  C,  yet  by  means  of 
various  subterfuges  and  evasions  they  are  to  be  permitted  duly 
to  enter  upon  their  work  in  that  institution.  The  New  York 
Observer  states  that  "next  month  six  sisters  of  the  Holy  Cross 
will  arrive  in  this  city  from  Germany  to  take  charge  of  the  Leo 
House,  near  Castle  Garden.  Bishop  Wiggar,  of  Newark, 
engaged  them  while  there.  He  sent  over  a  Polish  priest  to 
Newark  to  establish  a  Polish  church.  He  also  secured  a  num- 
ber of  Slav  priests,  who  will  soon  arrive.  All  these  will  be 
admitted  without  any  penalty."  Now  is  it  right  and  fair  to 
make  such  distinctions  ?  Why  shall  Rome  be  exempt  from  the 
force  of  a  law  that  binds  Protestants  similarly  situated  ?  Is  it 
because  the  latter  are  tamely  acquiescent  and  the  former  are 
ingeniously  resistant,  and  the  government,  for  fear  of  the 
political  consequences,  deems  it  politic  to  let  them  alone  ?  Is  it 
because  Jesuitism  is  too  smart  for  the  legal  interpreters?  Is 
the  quibbling  that  Rome  has  "a  right  to  import  priests  and 
teachers"  on  the  ground  that  there  is  "no  contract"  in  the  case 
"because  there  are  no  stipulated  salaries  promised"  to  be  recog- 
nised and  sanctioned?  It  is  time  that  Romish  dominance  in  the 
administration  of  State  affairs  was  rebuked  and  checked. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


571 


Abrogate  the  law,  or  make  it  applicable  alike  to  Romanists  and 
Protestants,  or  so  amend  it  as  to  give  relief  where  its  applica- 
tion is  both  an  iniquity  and  a  hardship,  and  where  its  original 
framers  evidently  never  intended  it  to  apply. 

Now,  this  charge  of  partiality  in  favor  of  the  Roman  Catho- 
lics is  perhaps  not  altogether  just.  The  Columbia  Theological 
Seminary  is  a  Protestant  institution.  It  has  recently  imported 
a  Professor  from  Canada,  and,  so  far  as  the  public  knows,  has 
paid  no  penalty  for  so  doing.  The  duty  of  $1,000  can  hardly 
have  been  paid  as  an  incidental  expense,  and  nothing  said  about 
the  matter.  Hence  we  may  safely  infer  that  the  Seminary  has 
escaped  this  tariff  tax.  Thus  the  charge  of  partiality  in  favor 
of  Roman  Catholic  institutions  exclusively  is  disproved. 

If  it  be  asked  how  this  immunity  has  been  gained,  we  cannot 
tell.  But  perhaps  for  the  sake  of  these  other  distressed 
churches  and  institutions  the  process  should  be  made  known. 
In  the  words  of  the  Presbyterian,  was  it  "by  means  of  various 
subterfuges  and  evasions"?  Could  the  Board  of  Directors 
have  been  "ingeniously  resistant"?  Or  were  they  "too  smart 
for  the  legal  interpreters"?  Or  was  there  "quibbling"  of  any 
sort,  that  should  not  be  "recognised  and  sanctioned"  ?  Surely 
not !  Utterly  impossible  !  And  yet  the  question  recurs,  "How 
was  it  done?"  and  the  puzzle  is  yet  unsolved. 

We  have  heard  the  following  explanation  given  of  the  method 
pursued,  but  cannot  vouch  for  it.  It  is  not  official.  "There 
was  no  contract  made  until  the  Professor  was  in  this  country. 
He  was  simply  invited  to  come  to  the  United  States,  on  a 
friendly  visit,  with  the  understanding  that  a  contract  would  be 
made  after  he  arrived.  Hence  the  law  was  not  violated !"  In 
short,  he  was  smuggled  in !  But  then  the  end  was  good,  and 
hence,  according  to  a  very  common  doctrine,  not  altogether 
unknown  to  the  Jesuits,  the  use  of  a  little  crooked  means  was 
justifiable.  At  any  rate,  whether  justifiable  or  not,  or  however 
accomplished,  it  was  done. 

Of  course,  the  explanation  above  given,  not  being  official, 
may  be  incorrect.  At  most,  it  is  only  a  guess.  If  any  of  the 
churches  or  institutions  interested  in  the  matter  will  write  to 
the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Columbia  Theological  Seminary, 
they  may  gain  practical  and  profitable  information.  It  may 
save  them  thousands  of  dollars,  and  much  annoyance. 


572 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


The  following  comments  on  "the  tariff  on  the  gospel  min- 
istry" are  made  by  our  neighbor  across  the  border,  the  Canada 
Presbyterian: 

The  First  Presbyterian  church  of  Erie,  Pa.,  has  called  the 
Rev.  H.  C.  Ross,  of  Ingersoll,  Ont.  Mr.  Ross  desires  to  accept, 
but  if  he  does  so,  the  church  in  Erie  will  have  to  pay  a  fine  of 
$1,000  for  importing  foreign  labor  into  the  United  States. 
This  is  what  Trinity  church,  New  York,  had  to  do  a  year  or 
two  ago  when  she  imported  a  London  divine  to  be  her  rector, 
and  what  the  new  Catholic  University  in  Washington  City  has 
to  face  if  the  faculty  is  brought,  as  is  desired,  from  Europe. 
This  applying  the  foreign  contract  labor  law  to  ministers  and 
teachers  is  one  of  the  most  ridiculous  things  of  the  present  age, 
almost  as  ridiculous  as  the  Chinese  Exclusion  Act,  passed  at 
the  beck  and  cry  of  the  sandlotters  of  California.  The  law  was 
never  intended  to  apply  to  the  professions,  but  is  so  loosely  con- 
structed that  it  has  been  made  to  apply  to  all  occupations.  It 
was  intended  to  protect  American  labor  and  to  put  a  stop  to 
the  virtual  slavery  of  the  contract  system.  To  reduce  the 
wages  of  laborers,  mine  and  mill  owners  were  in  the  habit  of 
importing  under  contract  hordes  of  Poles,  Hungarians,  and 
Italians  of  the  lowest  class.  These  men  came  over  under  a 
contract  to  work  at  a  certain  rate  of  wages,  usually  very  low. 
The  contractors  paid  their  expenses  from  Europe  to  the  United 
States.  A  certain  amount  was  retained  each  week  to  reimburse 
the  contractors,  and  until  the  debt  was  discharged  the  laborers 
were  no  better  than  slaves.  They  had  to  submit  to  systematic 
robbery,  or  be  thrust  into  prison  in  a  strange  land.  Moreover, 
they  were  ignorant,  vicious,  degraded  in  morals,  and  filthy  in 
their  habits.  To  stop  this  system  the  importation  of  foreign 
labor  under  contract  was  prohibited.  Its  framers  never 
intended  it  to  apply  to  gospel  ministers  and  educators,  and  we 
sincerely  hope  that  the  coming  Congress  will  so  amend  it  that 
it  will  apply  only  to  manual  labor.  In  the  meantime,  if  the 
First  church,  Erie,  feels  that  she  cannot  succeed  without  Mr. 
Ross,  and  he  is  convinced  that  he  will  be  happier  there  than  in 
Canada,  we  hope  he  will  find  some  way  to  get  there  without 
the  thousand  dollars  going  to  swell  the  surplus  in  the  United 
States  treasury. 

One  cannot  help  regretting  that  the  Alien  Labor  Law  which 
now  prevents  Canadian  clergymen  from  going  over  the  border 
was  not  in  force  when  Dr.  Ormiston,  Dr.  Inglis,  Dr.  Irvine,  Dr. 
Waters,  Dr.  Gibson,  and  other  good  Canadian  preachers  were 
coveted  by  congregations  across  the  lines. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


573 


The  Barnwell  Lynching. 

In  another  column  we  give  an  account  of  the  killing  of  eight 
negroes  in  Barnwell  County  by  "persons  unknown."  This 
shocking  act  is  without  justification  or  excuse.  If  we  were 
without  law,  or  if  the  laws  were  not  and  could  not  be  executed, 
then  such  approximation  to  justice  must  be  meted  out  to 
offenders  as  may  be  possible.  But  we  have  laws  of  our  own 
making,  and  the  administration  of  these  laws  is  in  the  hands 
of  officers  whom  we  have  chosen;  if  they  are  not  faithfully 
administered,  so  as  to  give  protection  to  life  and  property,  we 
alone  are  to  blame.  The  killing  of  these  prisoners  is  therefore 
utterly  indefensible;  and  the  perpetrators  of  the  crime  should 
be  tried  and  punished  according  to  the  law  which  they  have 
violated. 


The  Salvation  of  All  the  Infant  Dead. 

When  the  disciples  rebuked  those  who  brought  young  chil- 
dren to  Jesus  that  he  might  touch  them,  he  was  much  displeased 
and  said,  "Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  unto  me  and  forbid 
them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 

And  again  he  said,  "It  is  not  the  will  of  your  Father  which  is 
in  heaven  that  one  of  these  little  ones  should  perish." 

It  is  certain  that  evangelical  Christians  do  almost  universally 
believe  in  the  salvation  of  all  those  who  die  in  infancy.  Some 
of  them  will  not  claim  for  it  absolute  and  specific  authority 
from  the  word,  yet  hold  it  as  a  reasonable  though  extra-scrip- 
tural belief.  Others  accept  it  positively  as  in  harmony  with 
the  scope  of  all  gospel  teaching  and  involved  in  the  very  word 
and  spirit  of  our  Lord's  utterances,  which  we  have  quoted,  and 
still  further,  as  deducible  by  good  and  necessary  consequence 
from  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement. 

If,  then,  we  hold  to  the  salvation  of  all  who  die  in  infancy, 
whether  the  children  of  believers  or  of  unbelievers,  it  is  a  pleas- 
ing consequence  that  thus  far  the  greater  number,  very  much 
the  greater  number,  of  the  saved  have  been  such  as  never  heard 
of  Jesus  or  his  salvation  by  the  hearing  of  their  ears ;  and  that 
from  age  to  age  this  becomes  more  and  more  the  manifest  fact. 
And  so  our  belief  in  the  salvation  of  all  dying  in  infancy  multi- 


574 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


plies  beyond  all  computation  the  numbers  of  that  great  com- 
pany, out  of  every  nation  and  tongue,  which  has  passed  already 
through  the  pearly  gates  and  are  following  the  Lamb  whitherso- 
ever he  goes. 


Voluntary  Associations. 

"The  whole  subject  of  societies  within  and  without  the 
Church"  is  one  of  the  topics  which  the  last  General  Assembly 
directs  the  Presbyteries  "patiently  to  consider",  and  to  "return 
carefully  formulated  papers"  respecting  it  to  the  next  Assem- 
bly. What  the  ensuing  Assembly  is  expected  to  do  with  these 
essays,  we  do  not  know.  It  cannot  be  expected  to  recommend 
an  addition  to  the  Book  of  Church  Order  on  the  subject,  either 
requiring  or  forbidding  the  formation  of  such  societies.  It 
might  prepare  a  digest  of  the  substance  of  the  essays,  and  cause 
it  to  be  published ;  but  that  seems  hardly  a  proper  part  of  its 
work.  Or  perhaps  it  may  be  asked  to  publish  a  "deliverance" 
based  on  the  papers  sent ;  but  what  would  be  the  use  of  adding 
an  Assembly  essay  to  the  Presbyterial  essays  ?  The  arguments 
presented  in  it  would  have  no  more  authority  than  each  reader 
or  hearer  would  think  them  entitled  to  on  account  of  their 
intrinsic  merit.  The  discussion  of  such  questions,  which  may 
not  be  absolutely  settled  by  the  word  of  God,  may  be  profitable ; 
but  the  suggestion  of  such  discussions  is  not  very  plainly  stated 
amongst  the  powers  of  the  General  Assembly. 

It  is  possible  that  the  Assembly  desired  the  opinions  of  the 
Presbyteries  to  aid  the  Church  in  its  administrative  work.  It 
seems  that  not  a  few  in  the  Church  are  dissatisfied  with  the 
position  assumed  by  its  agents  in  charge  of  Foreign  Missions 
as  to  voluntary  associations,  and  that  they  wish  steps  to  be  taken 
to  keep  from  committing  the  Church  to  opinions  of  which  they 
disapprove.  Certain  views  uttered  in  its  name  have  been  rather 
remotely  and  indirectly  approved  by  previous  Assemblies,  to 
which  objection  has  been  made;  and  it  is  certainly  desirable 
that,  if  the  Church  wishes  to  have  these  views  repeated  by  its 
authority,  it  should  be  after  it  has  directly  and  distinctly 
approved  them. 

In  our  Church,  it  is  recognised  that  "the  Church,  with  its 
ordinances,  officers,  and  courts,  is  the  agency  which  Christ  has 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


575 


ordained  for  the  edification  and  government  of  his  people,  for 
the  propagation  of  the  faith,  and  for  the  evangelisation  of  the 
world",  and  that  "the  exercise  of  ecclesiastical  power,  whether 
joint  or  several,  has  the  divine  sanction,  when  in  conformity 
with  the  statutes  enacted  by  Christ,  the  Lawgiver,  and  when 
put  forth  by  courts  or  by  officers  appointed  thereunto  in  his 
word."  We  suppose  that  no  true  Presbyterian  would  say, 
when  Christ  has  ordained  an  agency  to  do  his  work,  has  enacted 
statutes  with  reference  to  it,  and  has  in  his  word  appointed 
officers  to  do  it,  that  it  is  lawful  to  employ  some  other  agency 
or  agents.  The  powers  of  these  divinely  instituted  courts,  as 
we  understand  them,  are  set  forth  in  our  Book  of  Church 
Order ;  and  beyond  the  powers  there  enumerated  they  have  no 
right  to  go.  If  in  anything  they  do  go  beyond,  they  are  so  far 
forth  themselves  acting  as  voluntary  associations,  and  their 
doings  are  without  authority  from  the  Church.  Hence  our 
church  courts  have  no  right  to  form  or  adopt  voluntary  associa- 
tions of  any  kind — the  Session  has  no  right  to  take  under  its 
jurisdiction  societies  composed  of  members  of  the  congregation, 
nor  have  Presbyteries,  Synods,  or  the  General  Assembly  the 
right  to  take  under  their  jurisdiction  affiliated  associations  made 
up  of  representatives  of  these.  If  it  were  otherwise,  such 
societies  would  of  course  be  no  longer  "voluntary",  being  under 
the  jurisdiction  and  authority  of  the  church  courts.  But  as 
before  intimated,  church  courts  have  no  right  to  exercise 
authority  except  as  prescribed  in  our  law.  Therefore  there  can 
be  no  "societies  within  the  church." 

But  should  it  be  inferred  from  this  that  individual  church 
members  may  not  form  societies  ?  By  no  means.  Individually 
and  collectively  they  may  do  many  things  which  may  be  of 
untold  benefit  to  themselves  and  others.  It  is  the  office  of  the 
deacon  to  discharge  duties  relating  to  the  care  of  the  poor ;  but 
this  does  not  make  it  unlawful  for  others  directly  to  relieve  the 
wants  of  the  needy,  or  to  take  part  in  forming  benevolent 
societies  for  the  benefit  of  the  sick,  the  suffering,  the  orphan. 
Besides  worshipping  together  as  a  congregation,  groups  of 
members  may  surely  meet  to  pray  with  and  for  one  another, 
and  to  study  the  word  of  God ;  and  this  they  may  agree  to  do 
statedly,  and  have  such  amount  of  organisation  as  will  help 


576 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


them  to  do  all  in  an  orderly  manner.  May  not  groups,  more  or 
less  numerous,  meet  also  for  the  purpose  of  learning  more 
of  the  needs  of  the  world,  of  the  character  of  mission  fields,  of 
the  progress  of  the  evangelisation  of  the  ignorant  and  the 
heathen  at  home  and  abroad?  And  may  they  not  further, 
when  their  hearts  are  stirred  with  love  to  their  Saviour  and  for 
the  souls  of  their  fellow-men,  devise  and  execute  plans  for 
increasing  their  gifts  to  the  treasury  of  the  Lord?  So  we 
might  go  on,  pointing  out  various  like  things  in  which  the  indi- 
vidual church  members  surely  have  the  right  to  take  part  if  they 
wish;  where  there  is  no  approach  to  usurpation  of  functions 
assigned  to  the  Church  by  its  Head.  On  what  ground  would 
the  formation  of  such  "voluntary  societies  without  the  church" 
be  assailed  ?  These  are  "without  the  church" ;  for,  although 
they  may  be  composed  wholly  of  church  members,  they  neither 
exercise  church  authority  nor  are  they  under  it.  If  they 
further  choose  to  ask  the  instruction  and  co-operation  of  the 
pastor,  this  does  not  interfere  with  the  conclusion  stated;  for 
he  comes,  not  clothed  with  authority,  but  for  the  time  as  a 
private  helper  and  friend.  But  certainly  such  groups  may 
never,  even  remotely,  assume  authority  in  the  direction  of  any 
part  of  the  Church's  work. 

We  are  not  at  present  considering  the  desirability  of  forming 
voluntary  associations,  but  solely  the  liberty  of  the  individual 
church  member.  Within  the  limits  indicated,  the  liberty  here 
asserted  seems  clearly  to  exist.  We  are  inclined  to  think  that, 
even  within  these  limits,  that  liberty  is  not  always  wisely  exer- 
cised— there  seem  to  us  to  be  too  many  voluntary  associations  ; 
and  there  is  in  many  cases  a  strong  tendency — a  tendency  which 
has  often  become  effect — to  go  beyond  the  rightful  limits, 
and  to  usurp  authority  which  Christ  has  intrusted  exclusively  to 
his  organised  Church.  On  this  point  we  shall  not  now  enlarge. 
We  may  say,  however,  that,  while  our  next  Assembly  or  any 
other  church  court  has  no  right  to  curtail  the  liberty  of  those 
under  its  jurisdiction,  it  has  a  right  to  warn  them  against 
dangers  attending  the  exercise  of  their  liberty. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


577 


Our  Foreign  Missionary  Work. 

Two  weeks  ago  we  published  a  statement  of  our  Secretaries 
of  Foreign  Missions  which  we  trust  has  been  carefully  read  and 
considered.  We  were  told  in  the  Annual  Report  that  thirteen 
new  missionaries  had  been  recently  appointed,  but  are  now 
informed  that  notice  has  been  sent  to  eight  of  these  that  the 
"purpose  of  sending  them  to  the  heathen  must  for  the  present 
be  suspended",  and  that  "the  same  notice  would  have  been  sent 
to  others  under  appointment  but  for  some  special  arrangements 
for  their  support  made  by  friends,  which  it  was  not  deemed 
advisable  to  break  up." 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  our  Church  is  well  able  to  contri- 
bute vastly  more  to  this  branch  of  its  work  than  it  has  been 
doing,  without  at  all  interfering  with  other  parts  of  it.  If 
each  disciple  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  to  whom  he  owes  his  salvation 
from  sin,  should  carefully  inquire  what  portion  of  his  income 
he  might  properly  set  apart  for  this  work,  with  the  words  of 
the  Lord  he  loves  sounding  in  his  ears,  "Go  ye  into  all  the 
world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature",  the  treasury 
would  soon  be  full  to  overflowing.  Or  if  each  disciple  loving 
his  fellow-man  as  himself,  should  appreciate  the  meaning  of 
these  words,  "Neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other ;  for  there 
is  none  other  name  under  heaven  given  among  men  whereby  we 
must  be  saved" — would  he  not  regard  as  the  veriest  trifling  his 
ordinary  gifts  for  sending  to  the  perishing  a  knowledge  of  that 
Name?  There  is  money  enough;  it  is  in  the  hands  of  those 
who  profess  supreme  love  to  God  and  love  for  their  neighbors 
as  for  themselves ;  who  love  the  Lord  Jesus  and  who  know  his 
test  for  professed  love — "If  ye  love  me,  keep  my  command- 
ments"— why  then  is  that  money  not  forthcoming  to  send 
messengers  in  greatly  increased  numbers  to  announce  our 
Lord's  name  and  to  teach  to  do  all  things  that  he  has  com- 
manded them?    Let  each  one  of  us  lay  this  question  to  heart. 

But  while  it  is  clear  that  our  Church  could  and  should  fur- 
nish the  means  to  send  out  all  the  missionaries  now  under 
appointment,  and  also  to  establish  other  new  mission  centres,  it 
may  not  be  amiss  to  consider  the  policy  of  the  Executive  Com- 
mittee in  making  appointments.  We  are  told  that  the  contribu- 
tions during  the  last  two  years  from  the  regular  sources  have 
37— w 


578 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


been  about  the  same;  indeed,  from  these  sources  there  seems 
to  have  been  a  slight  falling  off  during  the  past  year.  The  total 
receipts  for  last  year  were  $11,500  more  than  for  the  year 
before;  but  of  this  total  nearly  $15,000  came  from  legacies, 
which,  of  course,  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  regular  or  uniform 
source  of  supply.  Last  year  fourteen  new  missionaries  were 
sent  out — the  whole  number  in  the  field  being  seventy-eight. 

Now,  without  any  increase  of  income  promising  to  be  uni- 
form, is  it  wise  to  add  thirteen  more,  one-sixth  of  the  present 
number  of  missionaries,  as  seems  to  have  been  done?  The 
addition  of  one-sixth  is  certainly  needed ;  but  so  is  an  addition 
o<f  six-sixths,  and  far  more,  if  we  consider  solely  the  needs  of 
those  who  know  not  Christ.  That,  however,  is  not  the  measure 
of  the  Committee's  duty.  It  has  only  to  consider  the  means 
furnished  by  the  Church,  and  to  shape  its  course  accordingly. 
If  the  Church  should  do  less  than  it  ought,  the  Committee  is 
not  responsible  for  the  Church's  lack.  It  is  merely  the  hand  of 
the  Church,  not  its  head.  It  is  responsible  only  for  the  wisest 
possible  expenditure  of  the  funds  intrusted  to  it.  Clearly,  the 
sums  received  from  legacies,  or  special  arrangements  made  by 
friends,  should  not  be  used  to  send  out  new  missionaries  or 
establish  new  stations,  unless  there  is  reason  to  expect  a  steady 
increase  of  contributions  from  regular  sources  of  a  correspond- 
ing amount.  Special  contributions  should  be  used  for  special 
purposes.  There  are  always  extraordinary  wants  which  call  for 
extraordinary  outlays  in  connexion  with  missions  already  estab- 
lished; chapels  and  houses  for  the  missionaries  to  be  built, 
unexpected  voyages  to  be  paid  for,  etc.,  intermittent  needs 
which  absorb  all  intermittent  supplies. 

It  may  be  thought  wise,  when  there  is  a  temporary  surplus 
in  the  treasury  from  legacies  or  special  gifts,  to  enter  on  new 
undertakings,  and  so  commit  the  Church  to  them.  We  can  then 
say,  "See,  here  are  your  missionaries  in  the  field,  and  we  have 
nothing  to  support  them  with ;  if  you  do  not  send  in  increased 
contributions,  we  must  bring  these  brethren  home  and  abandon 
these  promising  stations."  It  is  true  that  we  may  be  able  to 
stimulate  to  increased  gifts  in  this  way,  but  it  is  neither  wise 
nor  right  to  do  so.  The  getting  of  money  for  missions  or  for 
any  other  part  of  the  Lord's  work  is  not  the  object  at  which  we 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


579 


should  aim,  but  the  getting  of  it  through  the  operation  of 
divinely  ordained  motives.  If  he  merely  needed  money,  he 
would  not  tell  us,  "The  cattle  upon  a  thousand  hills  are  mine." 
"The  silver  is  mine,  and  the  gold  is  mine."  But  it  is  his  will  to 
train  his  people  in  his  service,  to  cultivate  the  graces  of  the 
Spirit  in  their  hearts,  by  intrusting  his  work  to  them  and  leading 
them  to  do  it  under  the  influence  of  love  to  him  and  to  their 
fellow-men.  No  other  motives  should  ever  be  allowed  to  inter- 
vene. 

Therefore  it  would  seem  to  be  the  wisest  course  for  the 
Committee  to  arrange  its  regular  prospective  expenses  by  its 
reasonably  estimated  regular  prospective  income,  so  that  it  may 
never  be  even  tempted  to  appeal  to  any  but  the  highest  motives. 
Perhaps  in  making  its  recent  appointments  it  had  reason  to 
expect  largely  increased  contributions,  notwithstanding  the 
absence  of  such  increase  during  the  last  year.  If  so,  it  cer- 
tainly should  not  be  held  responsible  for  failure  on  the  part  of 
others  to  come  up  to  well-grounded  expectations.  Still,  it 
should  always  be  careful  in  forming  expectations.  The  search- 
ing questions  as  to  the  tower-builder  and  the  war-loving  king 
are  as  true  to-day  as  when  they  first  fell  from  the  lips  of  our 
Saviour. 


580 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Editorials  on  Organic  Union. 


Some:  Results  of  Union. 

In  view  of  the  proposed  union  of  the  Northern  and 
Southern  Churches,  it  will  doubtless  be  interesting  to  our 
readers  to  know,  amongst  other  things,  how  the  member- 
ships of  our  Synods,  especially  in  this  region  of  the  Church, 
will  be  affected  by  it.  We  do  not  now  intend  to  speak  of 
those  Synods  within  whose  bounds  nearly  all  the  ministers 
and  members  of  the  Northern  Church  are  white  persons,  as 
Missouri,  Kentucky,  Nashville,  Texas,  and  Virginia,  but 
only  of  those  of  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia, 
and  South  Georgia  and  Florida — covering  the  same  area 
with  the  Northern  Church's  Synod  of  Atlantic. 

The  number  of  communicants  in  the  Synod  of  Atlantic  is 
13,159.  Of  these  about  700  are  whites  in  Florida;  all  the 
rest,  with  hardly  an  exception,  are  colored  people.  (Before 
our  colored  communicants  withdrew  from  our  churches, 
they  numbered,  in  this  territory,  about  8,200.) 

In  South  Carolina  the  number  of  colored  communicants 
is  5,767,  in  three  Presbyteries ;  in  North  Carolina,  5,490,  also 
in  three  Presbyteries;  and  in  Georgia,  1,109,  m  one  Presby- 
tery. 

In  South  Carolina  there  are  70  colored  churches ;  in  North 
Carolina,  89;  and  in  Georgia,  15. 

The  number  of  colored  ministers  in  South  Carolina  is  32  ; 
in  North  Carolina,  37,  in  Georgia,  11.  These  figures  may 
not  be  quite  exact,  but  they  are  nearly  so. 

From  these  statistics  it  appears  that  the  membership  of 
our  Synod  of  South  Carolina  will  be  increased  by  the 
addition  of  32  colored  ministers  and  70  colored  ruling  elders 
— 102  colored  members  in  all.  That  of  North  Carolina  will 
be  increased  by  the  addition  of  37  colored  ministers  and  89 
colored  ruling  elders — 126  colored  members  in  all.  That  of 
the  other  two  Synods  named  will  be  increased  by  the 
addition  of  11  colored  ministers  and  15  colored  ruling  elders 
— 26  colored  members  in  all. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


581 


These,  then,  are  the  immediate  effects  of  the  contem- 
plated union.  It  is  idle  to  suppose  that  the  united  Church 
would  adopt  the  declared  policy  of  our  Church — the  organi- 
sation of  a  separate  Presbyterian  Church  for  the  colored 
people.  In  this,  as  in  everything  else,  the  policy  of  the 
Northern  Church  would  be  the  policy  of  the  united  Church. 
The  Northern  Church  numbers  661,800  communicants;  the 
Southern  Church,  140,000.  When  two  such  bodies  become 
one,  which  one  do  they  become?  When  five  unite  with 
one,  it  is  not  so  much  a  union  as  an  absorption.  It  is  like 
the  union  of  the  Independent  Presbyterian  Church  with 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  Confederate  States  in 
1863-4.  This  is  so  plainly  true  that  it  needs  no  proof.  If  it 
should  do  so,  we  think  the  statements  of  the  Philadelphia 
Presbyterian  on  this  point  would  be  trustworthy  evidence, 
so  far  as  its  own  Church  is  concerned.    That  journal  says : 

"In  the  South  colored  men  have  been  licensed ;  a  few,  we 
believe,  have  been  ordained,  but  there  has  been  always  a 
reluctance  to  acknowledge  these  men  as  full  members  of 
Presbytery.  We  do  not  know  that  they  have  been 
admitted  to  the  Synods,  and  we  are  very  sure  that  no 
African  has  ever  appeared  either  as  minister  or  elder  in  the 
General  Assembly.  In  the  Northern  Church  they  are  freely 
admitted  to  full  membership  in  all  our  ecclesiastical  bodies. 

"If  a  question  is  raised,  therefore,  about  the  colored  man 
and  his  rights  in  the  ministry,  we  must  say  at  once  that  we 
think  that  it  is  impossible  for  our  Church  to  recede  from  the 
position  which  it  has  already  taken.  We  must  stand  by  the 
right  of  the  African  to  seek  ordination,  and  if  qualified  to 
obtain  it,  and  having  obtained  it  to  take  his  seat  by  right  in 
our  ecclesiastical  courts.  We  must  stand  by  the  principles 
of  Presbyterianism,  also.  For  a  presbyter,  duly  ordained, 
is  a  presbyter  always  and  everywhere.  His  right  to  all  the 
privileges  of  his  order  does  not  depend  upon  his  color  or 
racial  descent.  It  inheres  in  him  by  virtue  of  his  ordination 
and  is  given  in  its  fulness  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of 
the  Presbytery.  All  that  is  meant  when  the  white  man  is 
set  apart  to  the  ministry  is  meant  when  the  colored  man  is 
set  apart.    This  is  a  plain  principle  of  Presbyterian  polity, 


582 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


and  ought  not  to  be  ignored,  or  nullified  in  practice.  The 
Church  united  should  deal  with  this  question  according  to 
the  recognised  and  unchanged  principles  of  its  polity." 

We  do  not  now  propose  to  discuss  this  subject;  our  only- 
object  at  present  is  to  set  forth  the  above  as  some  of  the 
facts  which  must  be  taken  into  consideration  before  final 
action  is  determined  upon.  We  may,  however,  venture  to 
express  the  earnest  hope  that,  if  a  discussion  is  to  arise, 
nothing  may  be  said  or  done  to  disturb  existing  fraternal 
relations.  If  we  are  really  one  in  doctrine,  one  in  polity, 
one  in  our  ways  of  interpreting  our  doctrine  and  polity,  if 
we  are  one  in  heart  and  manner  of  life,  by  all  means  let  us 
become  one  in  form,  in  organisation  as  well ;  but  if  we  differ 
in  any  of  these  respects,  so  that  the  present  cordial  and 
fraternal  feelings  existing  between  our  closely  related  fami- 
lies living  under  different  roofs  would  be  disturbed  and 
changed  into  angry  contention  between  us  if  forced  to  dwell 
under  the  same  roof,  then  let  us  remain  as  we  are  for  the 
sake  of  all  that  is  just,  and  pure,  and  lovely,  and  of  good 
report.  And  in  our  discussion  let  us  be  animated  solely  by 
a  sincere  desire  to  promote  the  honor  and  glory  of  the 
Head  of  the  Church,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. — Jan.  20,  1887. 


Dr.  Palmer's  Open  Letter. 

To  give  it  this  name  is  no  dishonor  to  it,  nor  yet  to  the 
other  members  of  the  committee  signing  it  with  him ;  and 
the  admirable  document  bears  the  marks  of  its  paternity 
very  plainly.  Every  member  of  the  Southern  Church  might 
well  read,  mark,  learn,  and  inwardly  digest  the  whole  paper 
(and  it  were  well  if  it  could  get  access  to  our  Northern 
brethren  too),  but  as  it  is  long  and  full  this  attempt  to 
present  its  substance  briefly  will  be  pardoned  by  all.  Many 
cannot  read  the  whole  document. 

The  committee  allege,  first,  the  original  ground  of  our 
separation  from  the  Northern  Church  as  still  in  full  force. 
The  famous  "Spring  resolution"  of  1861  gave  as  formal  and 
precise  an  interpretation  of  the  Federal  Constitution  as 
could  have  been  set  forth  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


583 


United  States.  This  was  in  direct  opposition  to  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith,  which  forbids  Synods  and  Assemblies  to 
handle  anything  not  ecclesiastical.  The  political  legislation 
so  freely  indulged  by  the  Xorthern  Assembly  then  and 
during  and  after  the  Avar,  has  passed  away,  of  course,  but 
the  principle  remains  in  that  body  and  its  Church.  North- 
ern Presbyterians  do  not  deny  the  abstract  doctrine  of  the 
spiritual  nature  of  Christ's  kingdom.  They  accept  the  Con- 
fession as  readily  as  eA*er.  They  will  renew  without  hesi- 
tation their  testimony  in  as  many  fresh  deliverances  as 
may  be  required;  as  they  did  in  their  late  Assembly  at 
Omaha.  The  difference  between  us  and  them  lies  not  in 
subscribing  opposing  standards,  but  in  interpreting  the 
same  standards.  It  is  not  intimated  that  they  will  trample 
their  convictions  under  their  feet.  It  is  claimed,  and  hon- 
estly believed  by  our  brethren,  that  in  a  great  crisis  like 
that  of  1861  the  Church  was  summoned  to  the  support  of 
the  State.  Their  political  deliverances  are  enshrined  in 
their  archives  as  precious  testimonies  of  the  "spirit  of 
Christian  patriotism"  (the  language  of  Dr.  Spring's  resolu- 
tion), which  the  Scriptures  enjoin,  and  which  has  always 
characterised  this  Church. 

We  of  the  South  understand  the  Church  to  be  restrained 
by  her  organic  law  from  intermeddling  with  the  affairs  of 
Caesar's  household.  They  at  the  North  accept  the  general 
truth  as  to  the  spiritual  nature  of  the  Church  with  a  wide 
margin  of  interpretation.  This,  then,  is  the  first  barrier  to 
union. 

The  second  barrier  is  that  the  body  into  which  we  are 
desired  to  fuse,  is  not  the  same  from  which  we  were  sepa- 
rated five  and  twenty  years  ago.  The  incorporation  into  it 
of  the  New  School  has  not  only  doubled  its  size,  but  intro- 
duced very  different  elements  into  it. 

A  third  barrier  is  the  covenant  into  which  the  Southern 
Church  entered  with  the  Synod  of  Kentucky  when  that 
body  was  incorporated  with  us.  But  the  fourth,  and  an 
insuperable  barrier,  is  the  race  problem. 

Now,  it  cannot  be  denied,  that  the  Almighty  has  himself 
divided  the  human  race  into  distinct  groups  for  the  pur- 


584 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


pose  of  keeping  them  apart.  And  all  attempts  to  restore 
the  original  unity  of  the  race  by  the  amalgamation  of  its 
severed  parts  have  been  signally  rebuked.  In  all  instances 
where  the  Caucasian  stock  has  crossed  with  the  others,  as 
in  Mexico,  and  in  portions  of  South  America,  an  emascu- 
lated progeny  has  followed.  The  Southern  States  of  this 
Union  are  alive  to  the  danger  of  amalgamation  between 
the  two  races  now  thrown  together  so  closely  in  their  terri- 
tory. This  peril  confronts  us  in  the  proposal  to  reintegrate 
in  the  Northern  Church.  The  North  is  not  embarrassed 
with  this  negro  problem.  Within  its  bounds  the  negro  is  an 
inappreciable  factor.  There  is  no  danger  of  their  churches 
being  ruled  by  negro  majorities  with  their  crude  supersti- 
tions and  their  fantastic  usages.  At  the  South  the  negro  is 
side  by  side  with  us  in  almost  equal  numbers.  It  is  easy  to 
see  how  negro  churches  could  be  multiplied  of  infinitesimal 
proportions  so  as  to  bring  our  church  courts  into  hopeless 
subjection.  Besides  this  ecclesiastical  peril,  there  is  a  social 
one.  How  can  the  two  races  come  together  in  equal  eccle- 
siastical relations  and  a  social,  personal  intimacy  not  follow, 
which  must  end  in  a  general  amalgamation? 

It  will  be  said,  "You  should  confide  in  the  Christian  char- 
acter and  intelligence  of  your  brethren  in  the  North,  who 
surely  must  see  these  perils  and  seek  to  avoid  them."  There 
are  thousands  of  beloved  and  honored  brethren  in  the 
Northern  Church,  in  whom  we  do  confide  to  the  last  degree. 
Unfortunately,  however,  behind  these  wise  and  safe  men 
there  is  a  wild  and  unmanageable  constituency.  This  sleeps 
in  calm  repose  until  some  occasion  calls  out  all  its  fanat- 
icism and  fury.  We  cannot  shut  our  eyes  to  the  fact,  that  on 
the  subject  of  the  negro  the  mass  of  Northern  people  has 
been  running  wild  for  half  a  century.  This  is  one  subject 
on  which  we  cannot  trust  the  North  to  legislate  for  us.  We 
know  the  negro  and  he  knows  us  and  he  trusts  us,  too.  He 
knows  the  Christian  people  of  the  South  wish  him  well, 
desire  his  advance  in  sound  education,  and,  above  all,  desire 
his  spiritual  welfare.  We  did  hope  to  hold  them  in  con- 
nexion with  us  in  our  churches,  and  we  were  slow  in  coming 
to  his  ground,  when  under  the  race  instinct  he  demanded 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


585 


a  Church  and  ministry  of  his  own.  And  now  there  is 
nothing  we  desire  more  than  to  bring  that  race  to  be  joint 
heirs  with  us  among  the  sons  of  God.  But  we  are  con- 
vinced that  the  policy  of  a  separate  church  organisation, 
which  the  negro  was  the  first  to  demand,  is  the  only  one 
practical  or  possible  in  the  relation  which  the  two  races 
now  hold  to  each  other. 

Other  objections  to  the  union  exist — as  the  "Boards," 
which  we  have  cast  aside ;  our  different  views  of  the  elder- 
ship ;  our  different  Books  of  Church  Order;  and  the 
Woman's  Rights  crusade.  These  and  the  like  are  practical 
difficulties,  which  render  the  union  in  question  a  doubtful 
blessing  even  if  it  could  be  obtained. 

It  would  not  be  candid  to  express  our  admiration  of  this 
paper  without  a  very  few  words  of  criticism.  It  passes 
our  comprehension  how  the  Northern  Church  is  to  be  con- 
demned for  her  political  deliverances  while  our  Augusta 
Assembly  is  held  to  be  innocent  in  its  meddling  with 
another  secular  question.  If  it  be  said  that  that  question 
had  a  moral  and  religious  side,  so  precisely,  as  Dr.  Palmer 
acknowledges,  our  Northern  brethren  hold  that  during  and 
after  the  war  their  politics  rose  into  the  moral  and  religious 
sphere. 

And  then  we  cannot  see  how  Dr.  Palmer  and  his  asso- 
ciates of  the  committee  failed  to  discover,  how  their  descrip- 
tion of  the  proceedings  against  our  Kentucky  brethren  in 
the  Northern  Assembly  of  1866  must  strike  very  many 
ministers  and  elders  in  our  own  Church  as  a  fair  picture  of 
what  took  place  in  our  already  famous  Augusta  Assembly. 
Let  the  reader  look  at  it: 

"The  older  ministers  in  our  body  are  familiar  with  the 
facts  to  which  we  here  allude;  the  younger  may  find  the 
record  in  the  published  Minutes  of  the  body  in  which  they 
were  enacted.  It  may  amaze  them  to  discover  how  the 
foundations  of  representative  government  were  removed,  in 
the  displacement  of  commissioners  whose  title  was  clear 
and  undisputed  as  that  of  any  other  member  of  the  body; 
how  the  forms  of  judicial  process  were  overridden  by  under- 
taking to  manage  an  essentially  judicial  case  by  purely 


586 


DR.  JAMES  W00DR0W. 


legislative  methods ;  how  ministers  and  elders  were  enjoined 
the  exercise  of  the  necessary  functions  of  their  office,  whilst 
without  trial  they  were  recognised  as  presbyters  in  the 
Church;  how  the  authority  of  the  Assembly  was  stretched 
over  persons  and  subjects  not  within  its  jurisdiction." 

It  must  be  manifest  to  every  one  how  closely  our  Augusta 
Assembly  imitated  the  Northern  Assembly  of  1866. — Aug.  25. 


The  Race  Instinct  in  Ohio  and  Kansas. 

The  editor  of  the  Congregationalist  says  that  "the  anti- 
pathy to  the  colored  race  does  not  appear  to  be  confined  to 
the  South."  The  Legislature  of  Ohio  has  "repealed  the  law 
requiring  negro  children  to  attend  separate  schools,"  and  at 
Oxford,  Zanesville,  Yellow  Springs,  and  elsewhere,  "public 
meetings  have  been  held  or  other  demonstrations  made"  to 
secure  a  reversal  of  this  legislation.  "White  children  are 
being  withdrawn  from  the  schools  and  some  white  teachers 
are  resigning  because  colored  children  are  allowed  to  enter 
their  classes.  The  same  state  of  things  also  is  reported  from 
some  towns  in  Kansas."  "The  indignation  of  the  colored 
people  has  been  kindled  by  the  hostility  shown  to  this 
measure  of  the  Legislature."  "The  blacks  have  been 
stirred  up  to  insist  upon  their  rights."  For  "the  next  Legis- 
lature to  repeal  the  obnoxious  law  would  be  an  easy  but  not 
a  creditable  solution  of  the  problem."  "Here  in  Massachu- 
setts there  are  colored  and  white  children  side  by  side  in 
some  of  our  public  schools  and  nobody  suffers  any  discom- 
fort." 

The  editor  continues : 

"If  the  matter  had  been  left  to  itself,  probably  it  would 
have  taken  care  of  itself.  It  is  the  testimony  of  abundant 
experience  that,  taking  the  country  as  a  whole,  the  colored 
race  prefers  to  be  by  itself  rather  than  to  associate  freely 
with  white  people.  It  prefers  its  own  churches,  and,  where 
its  children  are  numerous  enough,  it  is  hardly  likely  not  to 
prefer  its  own  schools." 

But  where  and  when  is  this  matter  ever  left  to  itself? 
Massachusetts  will  judge  for  Ohio  and  Kansas,  as  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


587 


Northern  Presbyterians  will  judge  for  the  Southern.  Yet 
the  circumstances  in  the  case  of  each  are  different,  and 
circumstances  make,  as  well  as  alter,  cases.  But  it  costs 
little  to  enter  on  a  crusade  against  the  sins  of  others.  And 
our  zeal  in  such  a  case  is  often  proportionate  to  our  want  of 
correct  information.  The  citizens  of  Ohio  and  Kansas 
are  no  doubt  as  intelligent  and  patriotic  as  those  of  Massa- 
chusetts. If  the  Northern  Presbyterians  were  surrounded 
by  as  much  and  the  same  sort  of  colored  population  as  the 
Southern,  they  could  not  help  seeing  that  it  is  every  way 
advisable  for  both  whites  and  blacks  to  follow  their  race 
instincts  in  the  matter  of  church  organisation. — Nov.  J. 


The  Negro  at  the  South. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  M.  E.  Strieby,  at  the  meeting  of  the  Ameri- 
can Missionary  Association,  at  Portland,  Maine,  October  26, 
read  a  paper  on  the  condition  of  the  negro  at  the  South. 
He  said,  "The  negro  does  not  enjoy  his  guaranteed  rights. 
.  .  .  He  was  deprived  of  the  ballot  at  one  time  by  violence 
and  is  now  by  fraud.  .  .  .  The  race  is  practically  disfran- 
chised. In  the  courts  he  seldom  finds  a  standing  as  a  lawyer 
or  a  juror;  in  the  chain  gang  only  does  he  enjoy  a  monopoly. 
In  the  church,  the  school,  the  shop,  he  does  not  as  a  rule 
have  equal  rights ;  he  cannot  join  any  church  he  pleases, 
cannot  choose  the  school  to  which  he  will  send  his  children, 
cannot  enter  the  shop  to  learn  a  trade  or  to  work  as  a  jour- 
neyman. He  cannot  everywhere  ride  in  the  street  car,  on 
the  railroad  or  steamboat  with  the  white  man,  though  he 
may  buy  the  same  first-class  ticket;  he  cannot,  in  many 
places,  attend  the  theatre,  concert,  or  lecture  with  the  white 
man,  nor  with  him  eat  a  lunch  at  the  restaurant,  nor  lodge 
in  the  hotel.  He  is  confronted,  hindered,  and  insulted  at 
every  step  he  takes  towards  enjoyment  or  improvement — 
a  flaming  sword  guards  the  avenues  of  knowledge,  industry, 
and  virtue  against  him.  His  guarantees  of  equal  rights  are 
a  mockery." 

This  paper  was  published  in  the  Boston  Congregationalist, 
and  it  has  drawn  forth  from  Ex-Governor  D.  H.  Chamber- 


588 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


lain,  formerly  of  South  Carolina,  an  open  letter  to  Dr. 
Strieby,  of  date  November  ioth.  He  refers  to  his  "having 
resided  twelve  years  in  the  South  and  had  much  to  do  in 
all  relations  with  the  negro,  and  being  still  a  constant  and 
careful  observer  of  his  progress  and  condition,"  and  he 
claims  to  be  qualified  to  speak  on  this  subject.  He  also 
refers  to  "many  circumstances"  in  his  "personal  relations 
which  might  naturally  predispose  him  to  harsh  feelings  and 
severe  judgments,"  but  says  that  he  has  deemed  it  his 
"special  duty  to  cultivate  an  impartial  spirit  in  thinking  and 
speaking  upon  this  subject."  "Such  I  consider  the  duty  of 
all  men,  and  especially,  permit  me  to  say,  of  men  of  your 
profession  and  position." 

"A  high  authority  (the  Ex-Governor  continues)  has  told 
us  that  'the  weakest  way  of  stating  a  matter  is  to  overstate 
it.'  Your  paper  seems  to  me  to  fall  into  this  weakness,  and 
more."  Referring  to  Dr.  Strieby's  statement  about  the 
negro  as  lawyer  and  juror,  and  his  monopoly  of  the  chain 
gang,  Mr.  Chamberlain  says  : 

"I  respectfully  ask  you  what  evidence  you  have  of  the 
truth  of  such  a  statement?  My  own  observation  tells  me  it 
is  totally  untrue.  In  South  Carolina,  and  at  the  South 
generally,  I  very  seldom  saw  a  jury  which  was  not  com- 
posed in  part,  and  often,  if  not  generally,  in  large  part, 
of  negroes,  and  I  am  sure  it  is  so  now.  Negro  lawyers,  too, 
find  free  standing  in  the  courts  throughout  the  South,  so 
far  as  my  knowledge  goes.  .  .  . 

"Again,  you  say,  'He  (the  negro)  is  confronted,  hindered, 
and  insulted  at  every  step  he  takes  towards  enjoyment  and 
improvement — a  flaming  sword  guards  the  avenues  of 
knowledge,  industry,  and  virtue  against  him/  Can  you 
justify  such  a  statement,  even  by  the  rule  of  rhetorical 
license?  According  to  my  knowledge  of  the  facts,  it  is  a 
gross  and  palpable  exaggeration.  The  avenues  of  knowl- 
edge, industry,  and  virtue  are  as  open  to  the  negro  as  to  the 
whites  at  the  South.  Your  'flaming  sword'  is  a  pure  fiction 
of  your  imagination.  .  .  . 

"Northern  philanthropy  has  a  wide  field  of  usefulness  at 
the  South,  but  its  work  and  aim  will  not  be  advanced  by 
sweeping  denunciations,  even  if  well-founded,  and  surely 
not  by  denunciations  which,  like  yours,  are  unfounded  in 
fact.  I  have  therefore  read  your  paper  with  profound 
regret;  for  while  I  see  much  in  it  to  approve,  I  find  also  a 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


589 


spirit  of  disregard  of  facts,  of  wholesale  denunciation,  of 
gross  overstatement,  which  renders  it,  as  a  whole,  mislead- 
ing and  mischievous. 

"You,  sir,  cannot  plead  the  excuse  of  our  ordinary  parti- 
san editor  or  stump  speaker,  whose  craft  it  is  to  paint 
lurid  pictures  of  the  South  regardless  of  truth,  for  passing 
party  ends.  I  do  not  see  how  you  can  plead  ignorance  of 
the  facts ;  and  hence,  with  the  deepest  regret,  I  feel  called 
upon  to  bring  you  to  public  account  for  your  statements  of 
the  negro's  situation  at  the  South.  As  I  value  your  cause, 
I  deplore  and  condemn  your  paper,  and,  high  as  you  are 
in  position  and  standing,  I  take  leave  to  tell  you,  you  are 
sinning  against  truth  and  light  in  putting  such  utterances 
before  the  public,  or  indulging  in  them  in  private." 

W e  are  very  glad  to  see  this  rebuke  by  Ex-Governor 
Chamberlain  of  some  of  the  overzealous  Northern  friends 
of  our  colored  people,  who  often  speak  and  write  like  ene- 
mies of  their  white  brethren  of  the  South.  The  circum- 
stances of  the  whole  case  fairly  considered,  who  can  be 
surprised  if  bad  men  amongst  us  should  treat  the  negro 
unjustly,  and  if  even  good  men  should  not  take  him  into 
their  very  bosoms  ?  The  most  worthless  piety  is  that  which 
seeks  to  reform  other  people  but  not  ourselves.  The  cheap- 
est and  the  meanest  philanthropy  is  that  which  makes  a 
great  noise  about  wrongs  and  miseries  and  misdoings  far 
away,  but  is  blind  and  deaf  to  like  things  at  our  own  doors. 
We  assert  boldly  that  the  white  man  of  the  South,  whether 
good  or  bad,  feels  and  acts  more  kindly  to  the  negro  than 
the  corresponding  class  at  the  North.  Perhaps  the  various 
specifications  in  Dr.  Strieby's  charge  may  apply  more  justly 
to  some  other  Southern  States  than  to  South  Carolina, 
where  negroes  certainly  do  ride  in  street  cars,  and  railway 
trains,  and  sit  in  jury  boxes,  and  plead  in  courts,  along  side 
of  white  men ;  but  we  do  not  suppose  that  anywhere  at  the 
North  it  is  for  the  black  man,  or  the  white  man  either,  to 
join  any  church  he  pleases,  or  to  force  his  children  into  any 
school  or  himself  into  any  shop  without  regard  to  the 
wishes  or  rights  of  others.  It  may  as  well  be  under- 
stood now  as  hereafter  that  at  the  South,  as  in  New  Eng- 
land, shopmasters  choose  their  apprentices  and  their  jour- 
neymen from  any  class  or  nationality  they  prefer;  also,  that 


590 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


the  whites  whose  taxes  support  the  schools,  choose  to  have 
their  children  educated  separately  from  the  blacks;  and, 
that  as  to  our  churches,  race  preferences,  whether  in  white 
people  or  black,  are  not  held  to  be  schismatic  and  do  not 
destroy  the  unity  of  the  Spirit.  In  fine,  people  at  the  South 
of  different  origin  and  blood  and  creed  do  not  all  mix 
together  any  better  than  they  do  in  Boston  itself. — Dec.  22. 


Northern  Ideas  About  Organic  Union. 

The  New  York  Independent  is,  of  course,  no  organ  of  the 
Northern  Presbyterian  Church,  but  it  is  a  very  intelligent 
observer,  and,  it  may  well  be  supposed,  a  fair  and  candid 
reporter  of  what  is  the  prevalent  sentiment  in  that  Church 
as  to  organic  union.  It  says  the  prospect  is  "not  bright." 
"Here  and  there  there  is  some  show  of  zeal,"  yet  there  is 
"extensive  indifference."  This  springs  "partly  from  the 
failure  of  past  negotiations,"  but  still  more  from  a  convic- 
tion that  "the  wide  differences  of  opinion  and  temper  which 
exist  render  present  unity  impracticable." 

As  to  the  Southern  body,  the  Independent  is  much  less 
well  informed.  It  considers  that  similar  indifference  is  wide- 
spread, but  it  holds  that  the  question  is  to  our  Church  one 
of  more  practical,  immediate  moment;  because,  while  we 
are  not  moving  northward,  the  Northern  Church  has  some 
hundreds  of  churches  at  the  South,  and  is  continually  plant- 
ing more  among  both  the  white  and  the  colored  population. 
This  work,  it  says,  is  "becoming  to  Southern  Presbyterians 
more  and  more  a  rock  of  offence."  But  meanwhile  the 
steady  and  rapid  growth  of  the  Cumberland  body  threatens 
the  Southern  Church  from  another  quarter,  so  that  we  must 
"either  unite  with  our  Northern  brethren,"  or  be  crowded 
by  them  and  the  Cumberlands  "into  a  corner  of  insignifi- 
cance." 

Of  course,  the  reply  which  Southern  Presbyterians  might 
naturally  be  expected  to  make  to  this  prognostication  of  our 
coming  ruin,  is  that  even  if  the  facts  be  admitted  to  be 
correctly  stated,  we  do  not  consider  numbers  to  be  always 
strength,  and  that  we  are  more  anxious  to  be  found  dili- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


591 


gently  cultivating  our  little  field,  for  which  alone  we  are 
responsible,  than  to  see  its  "insignificance"  give  way  to 
greater  length  and  breadth.  Our  future  is  with  our  Master. 
If  we  can  only  be  faithful  to  principles  committed  to  us  by 
him,  it  need  not  concern  us  whether  we  become  great  or 
continue  small. 

But  the  Independent  does  not  hesitate  to  call  our  assertion 
of  such  principles  "sheer  and  utter  nonsense  as  was  ever 
enunciated  by  any  Christian  body."  This  in  regard  to  the 
Church  being  Christ's  kingdom  and  forbidden  all  politica- 
tions.  But  when  it  comes  to  the  negro,  our  New  York 
contemporary  throws  up  at  us  that  "they  hold  still,  as  they 
held  before  the  war,  that  slavery  was  a  just  and  beneficent 
institution."  Certainly;  the  Bible  is  still  our  sole  and  suffi- 
cient rule,  and  it  does  not  condemn  slaveholding.  Yet  we 
are  very  glad  to  have  had  our  responsibilities  as  Christian 
slaveholders  brought  providentially  to  an  end.  So  far, 
then,  what  the  Independent  has  said  on  the  subject  of  the 
negro  and  the  Southern  Presbyterian  whites,  is  quite  cor- 
rect. Not  so  what  it  ascribes  to  us  touching  slavery  as 
being  a  "judicial  infliction  upon  the  unhappy  descendants 
of  Ham."  That  is  no  Southern  Presbyterian  opinion  at  all. 
The  slavery  of  the  days  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  was  not 
confined  to  any  one  race,  and  yet  the  rights  and  the  duties 
of  master  and  of  slave  are  plainly  taught  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  it  is  there  we  find  our  whole  creed  respecting  this 
subject.  We  have  no  use  for  and  little  confidence  in  the 
ethnological  argument. 

The  truth  is,  we  are  amazed  at  the  degree  of  prejudice 
constantly  exhibited  as  to  this  whole  question  by  this  very 
intelligent  journal  and  multitudes  of  our  Northern  friends 
who  are  highly  intelligent  as  to  other  matters.  We  would 
not  seem  or  be  offensive,  else  we  should  have  to  express 
our  wonder  at  this  ignorance  of  Southern  opinions.  It 
denounces  ours  as  "unbiblical  and  thoroughly  wicked 
notions  respecting  the  colored  man  and  his  rights  within 
the  one  household  of  faith."  The  meaning  is  that  the 
colored  man,  as  such,  has  a  right  to  be  a  member  of  the  white 
churches  of  the  South.    Well,  that  is  not  a  right  conceded 


592 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


to  the  white  man  as  such.  Every  body  of  men,  whether 
political  or  ecclesiastical,  or  whatever  else,  has  a  right  to 
choose  whom  it  will  receive  into  its  membership.  No  Con- 
gregational church  in  New  England  allows  a  Southern  man, 
whether  white  or  black,  to  claim  admission  into  its  mem- 
bership just  because  he  is  Southern.  English,  French,  Ger- 
man, or  Italian  believers  do  not  complain  that  their  rights 
are  denied  because  it  is  held  that  they  may  and  should 
organise  into  Christian  churches  separate  from  the  Ameri- 
can. 

When  a  man  is  color  blind,  he  cannot  distinguish  blue 
from  green.  The  Independent  is  a  representative  of  a  large 
class  of  Northern  Christians  who  refuse  to  see  any  differ- 
ence between  white  and  black  down  here  in  the  South, 
although  strange  to  say  they  can  distinguish  between  them 
in  their  own  latitude.  But  really  it  is  not  at  all  with  us 
Southern  Presbyterians  a  mere  question  of  color.  We 
understand  this  whole  subject  better  than  the  North  can  do. 
Let  them  insist  as  they  may  that  white  and  black  should  and 
must  be  one  ecclesiastically,  we  know  what  evils  to  our 
social  fabric  that  must  needs  work.  Their  denunciations 
of  our  views  as  wicked  have  no  weight  with  us  whatever. 
Let  them  deliver  their  own  social  state  from  "unbiblical 
and  thoroughly  wicked"  opinions  and  practices  as  to 
divorce  before  they  expect  us  to  take  them  for  our  teachers 
on  questions  of  this  sort.  What  is  to  become  of  the  North 
unless  these  "unbiblical  and  thoroughly  wicked"  opinions 
and  practices  of  theirs  shall  come  to  an  end? — Jan.  5,  1888. 


The  Overture:  on  Organic  Union. 

The  fact  that  there  is  a  mistake  in  the  published  Minutes 
of  the  General  Assembly  touching  an  overture  on  organic 
union  has  already  been  made  known  by  the  Permanent 
Clerk.  It  seems  to  be  supposed  by  some  persons  that  this 
mistake  will  defeat  the  object  of  the  Assembly  and  that  the 
Presbyteries  cannot  vote  on  the  question  of  advising  and 
consenting  to  the  addition  to  the  Book  of  Church  Order 
which  the  Assembly  recommended.    This  opinion  we  think 


HIS  TEACHINGS 


593 


is  not  well  founded.  As  the  Central  Presbyterian  well  says, 
"If  the  original  written  records  are  correct,  the  mistake  in 
the  printed  Minutes  is  not  so  serious  a  matter.''  All  that  the 
Presbyteries  are  concerned  to  know  is  whether  or  not  the 
Assembly  sent  down  the  overture  to  them.  How  can  they 
ascertain  this?  From  the  Minutes.  What  are  the  Minutes? 
The  record  of  proceedings  as  read  to  the  Assembly  and 
approved  by  it.  How  can  it  be  known  what  the  Assembly 
approved?  From  a  copy  of  the  original  record  duly  authen- 
ticated by  the  Assembly's  officer  appointed  for  the  purpose 
— the  Clerk.  Now,  this  is  just  what  each  Presbytery  will 
receive,  as  we  understand. 

The  error  in  the  printed  Minutes  cannot  possibly  nullify 
the  act  of  the  General  Assembly.  And  the  Presbyteries 
should  vote  respecting  the  overture  without  any  regard  to 
the  mistake  there  made. — March  29. 


The  Committee  of  Inquiry. 

There  is  one  feature  of  the  last  General  Assembly's  act 
in  appointing  a  Committee  of  Inquiry  which  has  hardly 
received  sufficient  attention,  and  that  is  its  charming  sim- 
plicity. It  is  a  plan  for  obtaining  information  and  for 
investigating  character  that  is  exceedingly  novel  also.  We 
wonder  if  it  might  not  be  well  to  practise  this  method  in 
every-day  life.  Here  are  two  neighbors  who  are  thinking 
of  entering  into  partnership  in  business,  but  one  of  them 
is  not  quite  sure  as  to  the  principles  and  character  of  the 
othen    So  he  sends  a  messenger  to  him  who  says,  very 

politely.  Please.,  sir,  Mr.    has  sent  me  to  ask  you  if 

you  always  tell  the  truth:  or  if  you  ever  swear;  or  if  you 
have  got  over  the  habit  of  stealing.  But  on  reflection,  Ave 
are  inclined  to  think  that,  however  polite  the  replies  might 
be,  the  information  given  might  not  be  the  best  obtainable. 
Hence  we  must  abstain  from  recommending  its  general 
adoption,  while  retaining  our  admiration  of  its  child-like 
simplicity  and  its  novelty. 

Even  where  the  neighbors  are  two  General  Assemblies, 
the  results  are  not  encouraging.    Our  Assembly  asks  its 


38— w 


594 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


neighbor,  "Are  you  now  quite  sound  and  orthodox?"  The 
neighbor  answers,  "Perfectly  so;  so  sound  are  we  that 
nowhere  throughout  our  bounds  is  there  any  question 
agitated  concerning  doctrine."  Now,  this  freedom  from 
agitation  may  be  the  result  of  a  universal  reception  of 
orthodox  doctrines,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  the 
result  of  indifference  to  the  most  vital  truths.  Which  it  is, 
we  think  might  be  more  clearly  ascertained  in  some  other 
way  than  that  adopted  by  our  Assembly. 

As  an  example  of  some  teachings  in  the  Northern  Church, 
we  present  the  following  extracts  from  an  article  in  the 
Homiletic  Review  for  January,  written  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  C.  A. 
Briggs,  Professor  in  New  York  Union  Theological  Semi- 
nary : 

"The  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration  has  been  destroyed, 
and  it  has  been  shown  that  inspiration  lies  back  of  the 
external  form  or  letter  of  the  words  and  is  in  the  inner 
word,  the  substance  and  the  sense.  Thus  the  apologist  has 
been  relieved  of  the  peril  of  resting  the  whole  doctrine  of 
inspiration  upon  the  adjective  verbal,  and  the  critics  have 
led  Christian  scholars  back  to  the  sounder  position  of  the 
great  Protestant  Reformers."   P.  12. 

"The  Reformers  recognised  that  there  were  errors  in  the 
Bible.  It  was  a  mistake  of  the  later  scholastics  that  they 
insisted  upon  the  absolute  errorlessness  of  the  Scriptures ; 
their  mistake,  however,  found  no  place  in  the  creeds  of  the 
Churches ;  and  the  Church  is  not  responsible  for  the  theory 
of  the  apologists.  Recent  criticisms  have  damaged  the 
traditional  line  of  evidence  here,  but  they  have  delivered 
the  Church  from  the  blunder  of  some  theologians  who  have 
been  willing  to  risk  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of 
the  Bible  upon  a  single  error  and  to  concede  to  the  enemies 
of  the  Bible  that  one  error  would  undermine  and  destroy 
the  Bible."    Pp.  13,  14. 

We  do  not  intend  to  discuss  these  teachings,  though  we 
may  say  in  passing  that  we  do  not  see  how  that  can  be 
the  word  of  God  which  contains  even  a  single  error.  But 
our  object  is  merely  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
absence  of  agitation  co-exists  in  the  Northern  Church  with 
the  teaching  of  such  doctrines  as  these.  Is  this  absence  a 
sign  of  soundness  in  the  faith,  or  is  it  a  sign  of  indifference 
to  fundamental  truth? — April  19. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


595 


Are  We  Agreed? 

A  correspondent  sends  us  the  following  extracts  from  pri- 
vate letters  between  himself  and  a  brother : 

"How  are  you  upon  Organic  Union?  I  am  for; — (a  third 
brother)  is  against.   We  have  not  yet  come  to  blows." 

"Answer.  1  must  confess  my  views  are  much  modified 
from  the  treatment  received  by  Dr.  Woodrow.  I  can  no 
longer  find  it  in  my  heart  to  hold  up  holy  hands  in  horror 
of  the  acts  of  the  Northern  Church.  But  in  the  reunion 
I  am  puzzled  to  know  where  they  will  place  the  brother  in 
black.  But  we  rejoice  to  know  that  the  Lord  God  omnipo- 
tent reigneth  and  doeth  all  things  well.   Jehovah  Jireh." 

We  have  received  many  letters  like  the  above,  expressing 
for  the  reason  here  given  indifference  as  to  the  result  of  the 
reunion  agitation,  and  as  to  the  continued  independent 
existence  of  our  Church.  But  we  most  earnestly  entreat 
that  such  thoughts  and  feelings  may  be  banished,  and  that 
we  all  with  one  mind  and  with  one  heart  may  do  everything 
that  is  in  our  power  to  make  and  keep  our  beloved  Church 
an  ideally  pure  and  scriptural  part  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 
We  cannot  deny  that  she  has  gone  sadly  astray  in  the 
particulars  alluded  to  by  our  correspondent  and  in  others 
also.  But  because  of  these  blemishes  in  the  object  of  our 
love,  shall  we  turn  our  backs  upon  her.  and  help  by  our 
coldness  and  neglect  to  cause  these  blemishes  to  become 
indelible  stains?  Rather  let  us  cluster  around  her  with 
increased  tenderness  and  affection,  and  shielding  her  from 
further  harm,  endeavor  with  all  fidelity  to  Christ  and  to 
his  truth,  to  free  her  fair  form  from  whatever  now  dis- 
figures it  and  hides  its  pristine  beauty. 

In  the  discussion  since  last  May,  we  have  often  been 
told  by  the  friends  of  the  proposed  union  that  our  Church 
has  been  guilty  of  everything  that  we  object  to  in  the 
Northern  Church,  and,  therefore,  that  we  have  no  reason 
to  refuse  to  unite  with  it.  We  must  with  sorrow  confess 
that  the  assertion  is  to  a  considerable  extent  true ;  but  yet 
the  conclusion  does  not  follow. 

During  the  war  there  were  expressions  in  some  deliv- 
erances of  our  church  courts  of  which  we  cannot  approve, 


596 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


although  there  was  an  honest  endeavor,  even  in  the  midst 
of  the  most  intense  war  excitement,  to  avoid  whatever  is 
inconsistent  with  the  distinction  established  by  our  Saviour 
between  the  things  of  God  and  the  things  of  Caesar.  But 
immediately  after  the  war,  our  General  Assembly  reiter- 
ated our  adherence  to  the  Address  of  1861  as  the  "only  full, 
unambiguous,  deliberate,  and  authoritative  exposition  of 
our  views  in  regard  to  this  matter."  And  the  General 
Assembly  of  1876  adopted  the  following  declaration: 

"1.  Touching  the  nature  and  functions  of  the  Christian 
Church,  we  solemnly  reaffirm  the  explicit  and  formal  state- 
ment set  forth  at  the  time  of  the  organisation  of  our  General 
Assembly  in  1861,  in  an  'Address  to  all  the  Churches  of  Jesus 
Christ  throughout  the  Earth.'  This  document  clearly  and 
forcibly  declares  our  position  concerning  the  character  of 
the  Church  as  a  spiritual  body,  and  therefore  'non-secular 
and  non-political.' 

"2.  Inasmuch  as  some  incidental  expressions,  uttered  in 
times  of  great  public  excitement,  are  found  upon  our 
records,  and  have  been  pointed  out  in  the  report  of  the 
committee  aforesaid,  which  seem  to  be  ambiguous,  or  incon- 
sistent with  the  above  declarations,  and  others  of  like 
import,  this  Assembly  does  hereby  disavow  them  wherever 
found,  and  does  not  recognise  such  as  forming  any  part  of 
the  well  considered,  authoritative  teaching  or  testimony  of 
our  Church."    Minutes,  page  233. 

We  cannot  claim  that  the  General  Assembly  has  always 
since  then  entirely  avoided  the  evils  here  pointed  out;  we 
may,  for  example,  perhaps  be  justly  taunted  on  account  of 
the  speculative  bargain  made  by  the  Augusta  Assembly  and 
the  Florida  Land  Company,  and  perhaps  a  few  phrases  in 
our  records  may  be  made  to  bear  a  "political"  or  "secular" 
meaning;  but  on  the  whole  there  has  been  an  honest,  earn- 
est effort  to  act  in  accordance  with  our  oft-repeated  princi- 
ples. We  are  also  constrained  to  admit  that  these  principles 
are  not  adopted  by  all  in  our  Church.  For  example,  the  late 
venerable  and  personally  loved  Dr.  F.  A.  Ross,  pastor  of  the 
church  at  Huntsville,  Ala.,  in  1865  obtained  leave  to  enter 
on  the  Assembly's  minutes  his  dissent  from  the  declaration 
"that  the  Church  has  no  right  to  give  its  deliverances  on 
political  questions  arising  either  in  the  State  or  federal  legis- 
latures, or  courts  of  justice."    And  now  it  is  stated  that  his 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


597 


successor  at  Huntsville,  the  Rev.  Dr.  J.  H.  Bryson,  defends 
the  act  of  the  Philadelphia  General  Assembly  in  1861  in 
adopting  the  Spring  Resolutions.  These  resolutions  decided 
between  two  conflicting  theories  respecting  the  relations  of 
the  federal  and  the  State  governments  to  each  other,  and 
to  which  the  citizen  primarily  owes  allegiance,  and  were  the 
chief  immediate  occasion  of  the  formation  of  our  Southern 
Church.  But  while  there  may  be  a  few  here  and  there 
who  agree  with  Dr.  Bryson  and  the  Northern  Church,  the 
great  majority  in  our  Church  are  agreed  in  maintaining  the 
principles  of  the  address  so  solemnly  adopted  in  1861,  and 
so  often  reiterated  since  that  date. 

Compare  all  this  with  the  principles  of  the  Northern 
Church  as  manifested  by  an  unbroken  series  of  acts  from 
1861  to  the  present  time.  We  are  glad  to  know  that  there 
are  a  few  in  that  Church  who  fully  agree  with  us  as  to  the 
non-secular  and  non-political  character  of  Christ's  kingdom, 
but  they  constitute  a  mere  handful,  and  are  without 
influence.  Our  readers  are  familiar  with  the  political  deliv- 
erances of  the  Northern  General  Assemblies  from  1861  to 
1866;  and  also  for  twenty  years  after  the  latter  date,  as 
shown  in  compilations  from  their  minutes  made  by  the 
Rev.  W.  M.  McPheeters.  Not  one  of  these  has  ever  been 
disavowed  by  subsequent  Assemblies;  and  for  the  best  of 
reasons- — that  both  the  sentiments  and  the  ecclesiastical 
utterance  of  them  are  well-nigh  universally  approved.  The 
convenient  excuse  is  made,  as  was  recently  done  by  the 
Northern  Committee  of  Conference,  that  it  is  no  part  of 
the  duty  of  existing  bodies  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  actions 
of  the  Church  in  the  past;  but  how  feeble  a  barrier  this 
delicacy  and  sense  of  propriety  would  prove  if  there  had 
been  any  change  of  sentiment,  we  would  soon  see.  The 
truth  is,  there  has  been  no  change. 

The  reference  of  the  Northern  Committee  to  our  common 
standards  amounts  to  nothing.  It  is  just  as  if,  when  trying 
to  see  whether  or  not  we  agree  with  our  Arminian  brethren, 
a  Methodist  should  tell  us,  "This  is  the  language  of  the 
Bible,  which  is  held  equally  binding  by  your  Church  and 
ours,  and  therefore  our  doctrinal  views  are  exactly  the 


598 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


same."  The  question  in  that  case  would  be:  Do  we  inter- 
pret the  Bible  in  the  same  way?  And  so  here  it  is,  Do  we 
interpret  our  common  standards  in  the  same  way?  It  is 
notorious  that  we  do  not. 

The  defence  set  up  for  their  political  and  secular  deliver- 
ances is  that  every  political  and  secular  matter  has  a  moral 
side,  and  that  it  is  admittedly  the  province  of  the  Church 
to  deal  with  the  moral.  This  is  true;  and  it  is  further- true 
that  it  is  not  possible  to  lay  down  an  exact  abstract  rule 
separating  the  right  from  the  wrong  application  of  the 
principle  in  every  particular  case.  But  the  two  Churches 
differ  wholly  in  the  spirit  in  which  they  undertake  the 
decision  of  the  question,  and  it  is  this  difference  in  spirit 
which  leads  to  diametrically  opposite  results.  The  North- 
ern Church  adopts  the  most  "liberal"  and  the  loosest  rules 
of  construction,  and  it  claims  as  within  its  province  what- 
ever such  rules  will  seem  to  permit;  while  in  our  Church, 
notwithstanding  occasional  exceptions,  the  rules  of  the 
strictest  construction  prevail,  and  it  must  be  made  clear  that 
action  is  required.  Hence  the  widely  diverging  and  even 
contradictory  results. 

The  same  is  true  with  regard  to  "the  subject  of  doctrine 
in  its  various  aspects."  It  has  often  been  said  that  our 
Church  has  always  been  free  from  the  "New  School"  errors 
of  the  North,  and  that  while  the  union  of  the  Northern  New 
and  Old  School  Churches  introduced  a  great  many  unsound 
persons  into  the  united  Church,  such  was  not  the  case  when 
a  similar  union  was  effected  in  1864  in  the  South;  because 
the  Southern  New  School  were  so  for  constitutional  and 
not  for  doctrinal  reasons,  and  that  the  Southern  New  and 
Old  School  were  one  in  doctrine.  Those  who  had  a  wide 
acquaintance  with  the  men  of  that  day  know  that  this  is 
partly,  but  only  partly,  true,  and  that  many  of  the  South- 
ern New  School  were  just  like  the  Northern  doctrinally, 
except  on  the  question  of  slavery.  But  while  making  this 
admission,  as  candor  requires,  it  is  still  true  that  the 
proportion  of  doctrinally  New  School  in  the  Southern 
Church  was  smaller  than  in  the  Northern.  And  it  is  further 
true  that,  while  we  are  very  far  from  being  able  to  claim 


HIS  TEACHINGS, 


599 


spotlessness.  there  has  always  prevailed.,  and  there  now  pre- 
vails, a  jealous  regard  for  doctrinal  soundness  in  the  South 
in  a  far  higher  degree  than  in  the  North.  Even  the  sad 
errors  which  have  disfigured  our  ecclesiastical  records 
during  the  last  few  years,  to  which  our  correspondent  refers, 
are  largely  due  to  this  praiseworthy  characteristic.  Our 
people  rightly  dread  as  most  deadly  any  departure  from  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints  :  and  partly  through  defect- 
ive knowledge,  partly  through  cunningly  devised  and  per- 
sistent misrepresentation,  they  have  been  misled  to  believe 
that  that  precious  faith  has  been  assailed ;  hence  the  wide- 
spread denunciation  of  the  supposed  offender  and  heretic. 
But  even  this  fault  leans  to  virtue's  side.  In  time  the 
defects  of  knowledge  will  be  supplied,  the  misrepresenta- 
tions will  be  seen  in  their  true  light,  and  the  truth  will  be 
believed;  while  all  along  the  stern  love  for  purity  of  doctrine 
will  continue  unchanged.  The  error  which  is  sweeping  over 
the  Church  will  be  temporary  :  the  jealous  love  of  God's 
truth  will  remain. 

Last  summer  a  distinguished  minister  of  the  Northern 
Church,  who  had  himself  belonged  to  the  Xew  School 
branch,  said  to  us :  "If  you  mix  a  quart  of  water  of  which 
the  temperature  is  sixty  degrees  with  a  quart  of  which  the 
temperature  is  forty  degrees,  the  temperature  of  the  mix- 
ture will  be  fifty  degrees.  But  if  you  unite  a  Church  whose 
doctrinal  soundness  is  represented  by  sixty  with  another 
whose  doctrinal  soundness  is  represented  by  forty,  the  doc- 
trinal soundness  of  the  united  Church  will  be  represented 
by  thirty.    And  so  it  is  with  us:'J 

What  is  true  respecting  doctrinal  tendencies  is  also  true 
respecting  church  polity.  In  the  Northern  Church  the  over- 
whelming majorty  have  abandoned  the  belief  that  Presbyte- 
rianism  as  a  form  of  government  exists  by  divine  right.  On 
me  other  hand,  in  the  Southern  Church  a  very  large 
majority  believe  in  the  Presbyterian  form  of  government 
because  they  find  it  set  forth  in  the  word  of  God  as  the  form 
ordained  of  God.  So  with  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
parity  of  elders,  ruling  and  teaching,  in  church  courts. 
There  are  not  a  few  in  the  Northern  Church  who  believe 


600 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


with  us  that  the  scriptural  form  of  church  government  is 
that  of  Presbytery,  and  that  all  presbyters  as  such  are  equal ; 
but  the  overwhelming  majority  do  not  so  believe.  And  it 
is  also  true  that  there  are  those  amongst  us  who  agree  with 
the  Northern  majority;  but  we  believe  that  they  are  com- 
paratively few  in  number. 

But  it  cannot  be  necessary  to  say  more  to  show  that  on 
many  most  important  points  the  Northern  and  the  Southern 
Churches  are  not  agreed ;  why  then  should  they  attempt  to 
walk  together?  We  can  understand  why  the  majority  in 
the  Northern  Church  should  desire  union;  for  they  know 
they  could  then  rule  us  as  they  might  choose.  We  can 
understand  why  the  minority  in  that  Church  who  agree 
with  us  in  principle  should  desire  it;  for  they  indulge  the 
vain  hope  that  with  our  help  they  might  become  the 
majority,  and  so  cause  their  principles  and  ours  to  prevail. 
We  can  understand  why  those  in  our  Church  who  have 
embraced  Northern  principles  as  to  "liberality"  in  matters 
of  doctrine,  who  defend  the  right  of  the  Church  to  make 
political  deliverances,  and  who  do  not  believe  in  the  divine 
right  of  Presbytery— we  can  understand  why  they  should 
desire  union.  But  we  cannot  understand  how  those  whom 
we  believe  to  constitute  by  far  the  greater  part  of  our 
Church  can — we  will  not  say  desire  union,  but — ever  con- 
sent to  union  so  long  as  the  wide  divergences  which  we  have 
pointed  out  continue  to  exist. 

Let  us  cultivate  the  kindest  feelings  towards  our 
brethren  of  the  North;  let  us  as  far  as  possible  put  away 
every  root  of  bitterness ;  let  us  agree  to  differ,  where 
unhappily  differences  exist.  This  we  can  do  so  long  as  we 
are  not  organically  one ;  but  if  we  should  become  externally 
one,  so  that  each  member  would  be  responsible  for  the  acts 
of  the  whole,  it  would  be  disloyalty  and  treachery  to  the 
truth  and  to  its  Author,  the  Head  of  the  Church,  not  to 
contend  earnestly  for  the  purity  of  the  faith,  and  for  exact 
conformity  to  his  revealed  will  in  every  particular,  even  to 
the  framing  of  the  tabernacle  according  to  the  pattern  which 
was  showed  in  the  mount. — April  26. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


601 


Politics  and  Religion. 

Under  this  title  the  Philadelphia  Presbyterian,  one  of  the 
most  influential  of  our  Northern  exchanges,  has  an  editorial 
bearing  indirectly  upon  the  subject  of  organic  union,  and 
directly  upon  the  race  issue  in  the  South.  We  believe  our 
readers  ought  to  know  the  views  and  principles  of  those 
with  whom  they  are  constantly  urged  to  unite  ecclesias- 
tically. To  this  end  we  give  this  striking  editorial,  which 
reads  as  follows : 

Ecclesiastical  hair-splitting  on  this  subject  leads  to 
hypocrisy.  There  is  nothing  but  weakness  evinced  in  trying 
to  stand  in  the  crack  between  one's  country  and  religion, 
for  they  are  all  of  the  same  family.  Patriotism  is  about  as 
much  born  in  the  Church  as  piety,  and  in  the  changes  in 
politics  of  the  South  will  be  found  more  of  the  reasons  for 
their  retrogression  on  the  subject  of  organic  union  with 
the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  North  than  any  other  cause 
or  causes.  The  back  action  visible  is  political,  and  is  not 
wholly  with  the  ministry  and  eldership  of  the  South,  though 
many  of  these  are  bitter  against  every  prospective  affinity, 
patriotic  or  religious,  with  the  North.  The  average  opinion 
of  the  ministry  of  the  South  on  the  subject  of  organic 
union  is  in  advance  of  public  sentiment.  The  people  will 
not  follow,  their  politics  are  reactionary,  and  the  ministers 
being  dependent  on  their  constituencies  have  had  to  take  the 
back  track.  There  are  all  over  the  South  men  far  in  advance 
of  the  multitude.  They  are  the  tall  cedars,  usually  men 
and  women  who  have  been  in  the  North  since  the  war,  have 
been  educated  there,  have  kindred  there,  or  are  in  business 
relations  which  take  off  the  edges  of  chronic  hostilities,  or 
they  have  been  soldiers  and  learned  in  this  school  of  adver- 
sity a  higher  appreciation  of  the  men  as  brave,  generous, 
and  high-minded  as  themselves.  But  behind  the  few  is  the 
great  unchanged,  hating  mass,  who  have  votes  and  can  send 
the  representatives  of  their  long  cherished  hatreds  to  eccle- 
siastical bodies,  often  fanned  by  political  excitement,  a 
force  ever  working  in  the  South. 

Politics  are  a  constant  factor  in  our  land,  whether  the 
people  are  conscious  of  it  or  not.  Politics  have  always  been 
the  life  of  the  Southern  intellect,  leading  to  its  expansion, 
its  development.  In  the  North  politics  are  not  a  constant 
theme  of  interest,  they  are  more  or  less  periodical,  and  the 
public  mind  swings  away  from  the  subject  more  than 
half  the  time,  but  this  has  never  been  the  case  in  the  South. 
The  people  love  the  stimulus  of  campaigns,  they  have  no 


602 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


such  varied  subjects  of  national  excitement  as  in  the  North. 
Southern  people  love  discussion,  both  political  and  religious. 
Indeed,  they  are  fond  of  any  subject  about  which  great 
speeches  can  be  made,  and  will  listen  to  them.  The  South- 
ern people  do  not,  as  a  class,  read  as  much  as  in  the  North, 
but  they  hear  a  vast  deal  more,  and  politics  is  one  of  the 
subjects  furnishing  endless  themes  for  discussion.  It  is 
the  great  outlet  for  oratory,  which  the  Southern  people 
adore.  They  are  born  politicians  and  carry  political  philoso- 
phy into  every  subject,  hence  the  absurdity  of  their  claiming 
greater  spirituality  in  their  ecclesiastical  legislation.  They 
are  not  to  be  blamed  for  this,  nor  do  we  blame  them ;  we 
adduce  these  facts  to  show  their  environments  and  habits 
and  how  their  ecclesiastical  life  is  affected  by  it. 

If  another  party  should  spring  up  in  the  South  on  pro- 
hibition or  any  other  political  subject  and  break  their  fatal 
unity  by  reactionary  movements,  ecclesiastical  union  would 
become  possible  or  more  probable.  We  are  not  making 
these  remarks  as  discriminating  against  the  party  in  power 
in  the  South,  it  would  be  the  same  in  its  effect  on  thought 
or  character  if  the  other  party  were  in  power.  The  South- 
ern mind  is  conservative  and  reactionary  and  at  the  present 
it  is  politically  against  the  negroes.  We  are  not  saying  there 
is  not  reason  for  it,  we  are  only  stating  what  appears  to  be 
a  fact.  The  race  distinctions  continue,  not  specially  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  for  we  believe  that  there  is  less  of  it 
than  in  any  other  Church,  but  society  itself,  in  our  judg- 
ment, without  religious  distinction,  is  growing  more  hostile 
to  the  citizenship  of  the  negroes.  It  may  be  the  fact  that 
their  political  movements  are  provoking  it,  with  this  we 
have  nothing  to  do  in  this  discussion.  The  movement  in  the 
Episcopal  Church  in  South  Carolina  threatening  its  unity 
shows  this.  The  opening  up  of  the  subject  for  the  first  time 
in  all  the  efforts  made  in  this  direction  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church  gives  more  than  coloring  to  the  conviction  that  the 
masses  of  the  South  are  growing  more  hostile  on  the  race 
issue,  in  both  politics  and  the  Church,  and  the  end  will  be 
a  severe  and  trying  struggle  to  both  whites  and  blacks. 

It  is  becoming  almost  self-evident  that  they  will  not  live 
together  on  the  basis  of  political  equality ;  one  or  the  other 
must  rule.  This  is  the  threatening  issue  coming,  and  its 
forecastings  are  seen  in  the  Churches.  Unless  there  is  a 
radical  change  in  the  politics,  and  new  and  diverting  ques- 
tions withdraw  the  public  mind  from  its  present  drift,  there 
will  be  no  organic  union.  It  is  not  Church  antagonism, 
doctrines,  policies,  or  faith  that  hinders — it  is  politics 
steadily  holding  back  those  who  would,  if  only  ecclesiastical 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


603 


issues  were  at  stake,  unite  like  a  well-set  fracture  on  first 
intention. 

Comment  is  hardly  necessary.  We  believe  every  South- 
erner has  well-defined  opinions  in  regard  to  allowing  the 
negroes  to  control  our  Southern  land.  We  have  experi- 
enced this  dread  fate  in  the  past,  and  we  do  not  intend  to 
suffer  it  in  the  future.  It  is  not  a  question  of  politics,  but  of 
existence.  If  we  are  not  to  be  under  a  mixed  horde  of 
ignorant  blacks  and  dishonest  whites,  if  we  are  not  to  be 
blotted  out  of  existence,  the  whites  must  rule.  Our  condi- 
tion, if  misgoverned  by  this  horde,  would  be  worse  than 
non-existence — we  have  tried  it,  and  we  know.  But  we 
do  not  care  to  discuss  the  question  here.  It  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  Church.  We  wish  merely  to  draw  the  attention 
of  our  readers  to  an  article  showing  the  wide  difference  in 
thought  and  feeling  between  our  own  Church  and  the 
Northern  on  this  fundamental  question  of  the  separation 
of  Church  and  State. — Aug.  2. 


Organic  Union. 

We  know  well  that  large  numbers  of  our  people  are 
weary  of  this  topic.  They  regard  the  argument  as  thor- 
oughly exhausted.  They  feel  that  the  continued  agitation 
of  the  subject  is  detrimental  to  the  peace,  progress,  and 
general  interests  of  the  Church,  and  that  the  history  of  the 
matter  up  to  this  time  dictates  a  discontinuance  of  the  nego- 
tiations and  a  dismissal  of  the  discussion.  As  for  ourselves 
we  would  be  glad  to  follow  this  course.  But  there  are 
those,  both  in  our  own  and  the  other  Church,  who  seem 
determined  to  keep  up  the  effort  and  persist  in  it  until  the 
proposed  union  shall  be  consummated.  Hence  we  need  to 
keep  the  matter  under  the  eye  of  our  people,  and,  as  far  as 
we  can,  prevent  it  from  going  by  default.  If  the  Union 
as  now  proposed  should  be  effected,  we  feel  assured  that  it 
will  be  because  the  great  questions  involved  are  ignored,  or 
because  the  fact  of  union  is  assumed  as  a  foregone  conclu- 
sion. Many  who  might  be  conscientiously  opposed  might 
be  ready  to  submit  to  it  as  inevitable. 


604 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


Some  of  our  Northern  exchanges,  as  well  as  a  few  writers 
in  our  own  connexion,  are  still  counting  and  interpreting 
the  votes  of  our  last  Assembly.  We  think  both  are  mis- 
taken in  their  interpretation.  They  assume  too  much. 
They  overestimate  the  strength  of  the  party  favoring  union. 
The  fact  is,  the  opposition  to  the  action  of  the  Assembly 
was  governed  by  various  views.  Some,  we  confess,  were 
fully  in  favor  of  union  on  the  basis  of  "the  standards  pure 
and  simple," — thus  throwing  out  all  the  questions  of  differ- 
ence. But  the  large  proportion,  we  think,  favored  union 
under  the  belief  that  these  questions  can  or  may  be  adjusted, 
that  we  need  only  to  understand  each  other  more  fully.  The 
main  point  urged  in  the  protest  which  many  of  them  brought 
in  was  that  they  could  not  assent  to  the  declaration  that 
"the  obstacles  to  organic  union  heretofore  existing  between 
the  Northern  and  Southern  Assemblies  have  not  to  any 
considerable  extent  been  removed. "  This  was  a  question  of 
degrees,  and  admitted  of  a  variety  of  views.  What  does 
"considerable"  mean?  Some  thought  that  much  was  done 
in  the  removal  of  difficulties,  some  that  very  little  was 
done.  Some  thought  that  the  differences  between  the  two 
bodies  had  been  almost  explained  away,  others  that  they 
were  in  the  way  of  being  adjusted.  Some  doubtless  had 
their  minds  fixed  on  one  point,  some  on  another.  Some 
thought  the  question  of  the  negro  was  substantially  settled 
by  the  plan  of  white  and  colored  Presbyteries  in  the  same 
territory;  others  thought  it  was  enough  that  the  Northern 
body  declared  that  they  were  in  favor  of  maintaining  the 
spirituality  of  the  Church,  and  ought  to  be  considered  both 
intelligent  and  sincere.  So  that  it  is  going  too  far,  and  is 
unjust  to  this  minority  to  count  them  all  as  organic  union 
men. 

Again,  when  they  dissent  from  the  Assembly's  declara- 
tion that  they  "continue  established  in  the  conviction  that 
the  cause  of  truth  and  righteousness,  as  well  as  the  peace  and 
prosperity  of  our  beloved  Zion,  will  be  best  promoted  by 
remaining  a  distinct  member  of  the  Church  of  Christ."  Of 
course,  the  grounds  of  this  conviction  may  be  different  in 
the  minds  of  the  majority  which  carried  this  report.  The 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


605 


protest  seems  to  imply  that  the  majority  were  opposed  to 
union  with  any  other  body,  and  that  they  were  opposed  to 
union  with  the  Northern  Presbyterian  Church  under  any 
and  all  circumstances,  neither  of  which  implications  is  true. 
We  do  not  undertake  to  explain  all  these  votes :  all  we  urge 
is  that  they  do  not  warrant  their  being  counted  for  organic 
union. 

A  great  effort  is  made  to  magnify  the  number  of  advo- 
cates of  this  measure.  We  are  persuaded  it  is  largely  over- 
estimated, and  that  this  will  be  fully  apparent  when  the 
sense  of  our  membership  is  ascertained. — Sept.  6. 


Cooperation  ;  Not  Union. 

In  another  column  we  publish  a  notice  of  a  pleasant 
social  meeting  of  the  Northern  and  Southern  Conference 
Committees.  In  that  notice  as  well  as  many  others  respect- 
ing this  Conference  which  have  appeared  in  secular  journals, 
it  seems  to  be  taken  for  granted  that  the  Committees  have 
had  intrusted  to  them  the  task  of  considering  the  terms  on 
which  the  two  Churches  represented  may  unite  so  as  to 
form  hereafter  a  single  body.  But  they  have  no  authority 
under  the  terms  of  their  appointment  to  consider  such  ques- 
tions at  all.  Our  Assembly  said :  "In  response  to  the  action 
of  the  Northern  Assembly,  we  cheerfully  agree  to  appoint  a 
committee  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  confer  with  a  similar 
committee  appointed  by  them  in  reference  to  all  such  modes 
of  fraternal  cooperation  in  Christian  work,  both  at  home 
and  abroad,  as  may  be  considered  practicable  and  edifying." 
In  the  same  paper,  it  had  been  said:  "In  view  of  all  the 
interests  involved,  we  continue  established  in  the  convic- 
tion that  the  cause  of  truth  and  righteousness,  as  well  as  the 
peace  and  prosperity  of  our  beloved  Zion,  will  be  besr  pro- 
moted by  remaining  as  we  have  been — a  distinct  member 
of  that  one  body,  the  Church,  of  which  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  supreme  and  ever-living  Head."  Hence  our 
Committee  would  transcend  its  authority  if  it  should  even 
discuss  the  question  of  union. 


606 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


It  is  true  that  the  Northern  Assembly,  in  proposing  the 
Conference,  expressed  "its  conviction  that  the  most  effective 
form  of  cooperation  can  be  secured  only  by  an  organic 
union  of  the  two  Churches."  But,  as  we  have  seen,  our 
Assembly  expressed  its  conviction  that  such  union  at 
present  is  not  desirable,  while  the  Churches  differ  with 
each  other  so  widely  on  several  important  points. 

But  these  differences  are  not  such  as  to  prevent  kindly 
feelings  between  the  two  bodies;  and  we  hope  everything 
will  be  done  to  promote  these  to  the  utmost. 

The  St.  Louis  Presbyterian  of  December  21st  says : 

"It  is  hoped  that  the  Conference  will  not  go  beyond 
the  above  instructions.  To  transcend  them  would  be,  in  our 
judgment,  eminently  unwise,  inasmuch  as  it  would  arouse  in 
both  Assemblies  apprehensions  that  would  seriously  hinder 
hearty  cooperation.  For,  though  the  Northern  Assembly 
expressed  'its  conviction  that  the  most  effective  form  of 
cooperation  can  be  secured  only  by  an  organic  union  of  the 
two  Churches,'  and  though  many  among  us  seem  to  be  of 
the  same  opinion,  yet  these  are  indisputable  facts:  (i)  There 
are  in  both  Churches  not  a  few  who  are  opposed  to,  and 
resolved  against,  organic  union;  and  (2)  it  is  agreed  by 
large  numbers  of  fraternal,  but  conservative  and  calm  men 
in  both  Churches,  that  organic  union,  however  desirable, 
is  not  now  possible.  Hence,  the  agitation  of  that  question 
by  the  Conference  is  sure  to  cause  disturbance  in  each 
Church  and  to  mar  the  amicable  relation  between  the  two. 

"We  ourselves  do  not  concur  in  the  'conviction'  that 
organic  union  is  essential  to  the  most  effective  cooperation. 
On  the  contrary,  we  are  convinced  that,  if  only  'the  mind 
that  was  in  Christ  be  in'  both  Churches,  they  may  remain 
separate,  each  fulfilling  its  own  mission,  and  yet  secure 
for  our  common  Presbyterianism  and  the  kingdom  of  our 
common  Lord  all  the  material  benefit  that  would  ensue 
from  organic  union.  Such  union  would  allay  friction,  pre- 
vent trespass  on  each  other's  fields,  put  a  stop  to  the  squan- 
dering of  men  and  money  in  localities  where  one  organisa- 
tion suffices,  and  secure  joint  effort  in  educational  and 
mission  work.    But  cannot  all  this  be  compassed  without 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


607 


union?  Surely,  surely,  'if  there  be  first  a  willing  mind/ 
This  is  all  that  is  needed.  But  if  a  mere  partisan  spirit  is  to 
be  exhibited,  if  either  Church  shall  say,  'We  will  do  our 
work  where  and  as  we  please  without  reference  to  any  one 
else,  and  there  shall  be  no  comity,  no  peace  except  on  con- 
dition of  organic  union,'  then  there  can  be  neither  union 
nor  cooperation." — Jan.  j,  1889. 


"What  About  the  Northern  Negro?" 

This  question  is  asked  and  answered  in  the  (New  York) 
Independent  by  a  negro  minister,  the  Rev.  William  V.  Tun- 
nell.  We  are  naturally  interested  in  knowing  how  the 
negro  fares  at  the  hands  of  our  Northern  brethren.  We 
know  what  they  say  about  our  duty  to  the  colored  brother ; 
and  it  might  be  supposed  that  what  they  exhort  us  to  do 
they  do  themselves.  But  one  does  not  need  to  live  long  in 
the  world  to  find  out  that  the  physician  does  not  always 
take  his  own  medicine.  Yet  even  while  remembering  this 
lesson,  it  is  hard  to  keep  from  being  surprised  when  we 
learn  the  facts  as  to  the  way  in  which  the  negro  is  treated 
by  those  who  claim  to  be  his  special  friends,  our  Northern 
neighbors.  It  is  just  possible  that  when  they  set  us  a  better 
example,  their  exhortations  may  have  more  influence 
over  us. 

The  writer  in  the  Independent  does  not  seem  by  any 
means  to  be  perfectly  acquainted  with  the  Southern  people ; 
but  we  have  no  doubt  he  deserves  to  be  fully  believed  as  to 
the  treatment  of  his  race  by  those  amongst  whom,  or  at 
least  not  far  from  whom,  he  lives.   He  says  : 

In  the  North  the  negro  generally  gets  what  are  commonly 
understood  as  civil  rights.  For  a  first-class  fare  he  gets  a 
first-class  ride  on  any  of  our  railroads  and  may  perchance 
sit  in  the  same  seat  with  the  President  of  the  United  States. 
Few  hotels  there  are  where  a  man's  color,  if  he  is  respecta- 
ble and,  especially,  has  money  in  his  pocket,  is  a  bar  to  their 
bed  and  board,  and  we  know  of  only  one  line  of  steamboats 
out  of  New  York  where  a  colored  face  or  the  slightest  daub 
of  the  tar-brush,  if  known,  disqualifies  for  a  stateroom.  In 
instances  such  as  these  the  colored  man  is  believed  to  have 
'the  authority  of  the  law  on  his  side,  so,  if  for  no  higher 
motive  than  fear  of  penalty,  his  civil  rights  are  conceded. 


608 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


But  when  these  are  granted,  his  advantages  practically 
end.  If  he  is  allowed  to  spend  his  money  on  an  equality 
with  the  white  man,  he  is  not  permitted  to  make  it  on  an 
equality  with  him.  He  is  debarred  from  pursuits  which  are 
remunerative  or  which  promise  ultimately  to  be.  Colored 
boys  are  not  admitted  to  learn  trades  in  Northern  work- 
shops, colored  mechanics  or  skilled  laborers  who  may 
migrate  from  other  parts  hither  can  find  no  employment,  not 
because  there  is  none  to  be  had,  but  because  "no  colored 
need  apply."  The  principle  that  there  will  be  a  "strike" 
if  colored  men  are  admitted  to  work  at  the  same  bench  or  on 
the  same  material  with  white  laborers  is  so  universally 
conceded  by  employers  that  on  the  one  hand  it  results  in 
making  them,  however  well  disposed  to  colored  people,  or 
however  philosophical  in  their  views  of  labor  as  a  com- 
modity regardless  of  the  color  of  the  laborer,  mere  machines 
in  the  hands  of  their  employes ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
deprives  a  respectable  quota  of  our  citizens  not  only  of  a 
legitimate  and  helpful  sphere  of  aspiration,  but  in  most 
cases  of  an  adequate  and  self-respecting  means  of  a  liveli- 
hood. In  this  respect  the  Northern  colored  man  is  far  worse 
of!  than  his  Southern  brother.  Slavery  taught  the  social 
heresy  that  labor  is  a  disgrace,  and  so  becoming  the  badge 
of  inferiority  it  became  odious  in  the  eyes  of  the  white  man. 
The  poor  white  would,  therefore,  rather  loaf  or  steal  than 
labor.  This  resulted  in  placing  the  handicrafts  in  the  hands 
of  the  colored  people  so  that  they  became  carpenters, 
masons,  blacksmiths,  men  skilled  in  the  various  manual  arts, 
to  whom  was  confined  almost  exclusively  the  exercise  of 
them.  Not  so,  however,  is  it  with  the  Northern  colored 
man.  The  opportunity  for  the  acquirement  of  any  skilled 
mechanical  pursuit  is  very  rare,  and  Southern  and  West 
Indian  skilled  laborers  who  immigrate  here  with  the  great- 
est difficulty — if  at  all — can  find  sphere  for  the  exercise  of 
their  trades. 

Almost  invariably  it  has  proved  futile  and  in  many  cases 
disastrous  for  colored  men  to  undertake  business  enterprises 
because  of  the  pecuniary  outlay  necessary,  and  the  risk  and 
the  harrowing  uncertainty  of  patronage.  Occasionally  a 
bold  little  bark  launches  out  upon  that  stormy  sea,  only  in 
five  cases  out  of  six  to  be  ingulfed  in  the  cruel  waves  of 
financial  embarrassment — not  in  every  case  because  of  inca- 
pacity or  inattention  to  business,  but  because,  by  the  logic 
of  events  they  were  not  patronised  by  the  general  public 
and  so  expired  from  atrophy.  The  most  successful,  indeed, 
preeminently  the  only  successful  colored  merchant  in  New 
York  is  a  retail  druggist,  and  the  condition  which  has  made 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


609 


his  business  prosperous  and  his  wealth  possible  is  that 
where  he  is  located  there  is  no  sharp  competition  and  thus 
an  unwilling  patronage  has  been  forced  his  way.  Had 
there  been  the  usual  competition,  it  is  doubtful  if  this  man 
could  have  achieved  the  success  and  amassed  the  wealth  he 
has — not  because  of  any  lack  of  business  capacity  and  devo- 
tion on  his  part,  but  of  the  lack  of  business  patronage. 
As  a  result  the  negro  appears  to  be  hopelessly  doomed  to 
servile  and  unremunerative  occupations — the  men  to  wait- 
ing, coaching,  boot-blacking,  erranding;  the  women  to 
washing,  scrubbing,  cooking,  etc.  No  one  ever  thinks  of 
giving  a  colored  woman  an  opportunity  to  exercise  her  brain 
and  fingers  at  a  telegraphic  machine  or  typewriter,  and  an 
application  from  one  such  would  be  deemed  an  imperti- 
nence. And  it  has  come  to  pass  that  occupations  wherein 
the  negro  was  the  acknowledged  lord  and  monopolist  are 
being  handed  over  to  the  more  prosperous  white  artisan. 
White-washing,  carpet-beating,  bartering,  catering,  for 
example,  have  been  almost  entirely  diverted  from  him,  and 
if  he  does  anything  of  the  kind,  he  is  required  to  do  it  at 
a  reduced  price.  The  colored  man,  seeing  the  door  to  legiti- 
mate aspiration  and  advancement  fast  barred  against  him, 
is  under  a  sore  temptation  to  become  discouraged,  fall  into  a 
state  of  utter  indifference,  and  at  last  into  positive  inertia. 

But  there  is  another  phase,  and  that  not  the  least  import- 
ant, which  makes  the  lot  of  the  Northern  negro  one  of 
extreme  trial  and  which  already  is  operating  to  drive  him  to 
despair  of  his  lot  and  his  future.  It  is  the  impossibility  for 
even  respectable  colored  people  to  rent  suitable  houses  in 
reputable  neighborhoods.  It  is  notorious  that  colored  peo- 
ple in  Brooklyn  and  New  York  have  to  live  in  the  vilest 
neighborhoods  in  "mud"  and  "duck"  alleys,  in  "bedbug 
row",  in  any  purlieu  or  hole  where  prejudiced  or  grasping 
landlords  may  allow  them  to  find  shelter.  Whenever  a 
particular  neighborhood  has  degenerated  and  is  in  ill-repute 
and  the  landlords  see  it  is  to  their  interest  to  raise  its 
moral  tone  so  that  their  property  may  not  depreciate,  it  is 
an  open  secret  that  they  sow  in  a  colony  of  colored  people 
to  redeem,  in  a  measure,  the  reputation  of  the  locality.  If 
the  houses  are  good,  colored  people  are  invariably  glad  to 
get  them,  but  it  is  always  at  an  advanced  rent.  As  a 
class  they  receive  the  lowest  wages  of  any  wage-earners  in 
the  community;  they  are  compelled  to  pay  the  highest 
rents  for  the  shabbiest  houses  in  the  most  undesirable 
neighborhoods.  The  writer  has  himself  felt  this  even  enter 
his  own  soul.  Renting  of  necessity  a  floor  in  the  immediate 
rear  of  which  are  four  large  boarding  stables,  the  odor  and 

39— w 


610 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


flies  in  the  hot  weather  were  intolerable.  Next  door  is  a 
large  wholesale  milk  dairy  where  from  midnight  till  late 
morning  heavy  trucks  come  trundling  in.  The  noise  inci- 
dent to  the  unloading  of  the  larger  and  the  loading  of  the 
smaller  wagons,  hitching  up  and  unhitching  of  horses,  pro- 
fanity, etc.,  of  course  defies  the  somnolent  powers  of  a  Rip 
Van  Winkle,  and  much  more  the  reduced  nervous  energy  of 
a  young  city  missionary.  We  have  walked  ourselves  foot- 
sore in  search  of  a  desirable  house  in  some  pleasant  locality, 
but  we  are  invariably  told  of  apartments  in  some  alley,  or 
that  "people  will  object  to  your  color."  This  objection 
to  color  is  so  persistent  that  cases  are  numerous  in  which 
light-complexioned  colored  people,  hiring  a  house  without 
proclaiming  their  slight  mixed  blood,  have  had,  on  dis- 
covery, their  rent  refunded  and  a  peremptory  notice  to 
move.  Said  a  brother  clergyman  engaged  in  the  real  estate 
business  (who  knew  I  was  laboring  among  colored  people, 
but  who  was  unaware  of  the  presence  in  me  of  a  little 
mixed  blood),  after  telling  me  he  had  nothing  on  his  list 
to  suit  me,  "advertise,"  he  said  [here  he  gave  the  form  of 
the  advertisement,  price,  etc.]  "and  perhaps  somebody  will 
make  it  an  object  to  secure  such  as  you."  "But,"  rejoined 
I,  "you  know  people  don't  want  colored  people  about  them." 

"That's  true,"  he  said;  "you  will  not  be  able  to  meet  your 
parishioners  at  your  house,  so  you  will  have  to  appoint 
office-hours  and  meet  them  at  your  church." 

"We  have  no  church  building.  The  congregation  wor- 
ships in  a  hall  at  present,"  I  said. 

"Then,"  concluded  he,  "you  will  have  to  meet  them  there, 
for  people  won't  have  them  around !"  If  all  colored  people 
were  scavengers,  or  low,  ignorant  brutes,  such  a  repugnance 
might  have  a  show  of  desert. 

Right  in  the  North,  therefore,  are  abundant  opportunities 
for  the  exercise  of  practical  sympathy  and  fair  play.  The 
enterprising  and  philanthropic,  who  are  ever  devising  plans 
for  the  comfort,  health,  and  moral  well-being  of  our  foreign 
population,  would  deserve  and  receive  the  gratitude  and  the 
earnings  of  our  colored  citizens  if  they  would  stretch  forth  a 
helping  hand  to  relieve  a  situation  which  daily  seems  to  be 
growing  more  and  more  hopeless. — Jan.  iy. 


Cooperation. 

As  our  readers  already  know,  the  Report  of  the  Joint 
Committee  on  Cooperation  was  adopted  by  the  Chattanooga 
General  Assembly  by  a  vote  of  99  to  27.    When  the  ques- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


611 


tion  is,  What  is  truth?  it  matters  little  on  what  side  the 
numerical  majority  may  be — one  vote  may  weigh  more  than 
a  hundred ;  but  when  it  is,  with  regard  to  matters  which  the 
voting  body  has  a  right  to  control,  What  shall  be  done?  it  is 
gratifying  that  the  majority  is  large ;  for  then  there  can 
be  no  dispute  as  to  the  real  intention ;  it  cannot  be  said  that 
"if  there  had  been  a  fuller  attendance,  the  result  would  have 
been  different,"  etc.  But  of  course  it  does  not  even  then 
follow  that  the  action  taken  was  the  wisest  and  the  best. 

In  this  case  we  are  inclined  to  believe  that  it  was  so. 
We  suppose  there  will  be  little  difference  of  opinion  as  to 
Foreign  Missions,  Publication,  and  the  negro  question. 
As  to  the  first  two,  the  Report  adopted  merely  recognises 
and  approves  the  existing  state  of  things.  As  to  the  third, 
it  states  the  truth  that  there  is  no  hope  of  agreement,  and 
therefore  recommends  that  we  agree  to  differ,  with  mutual 
respect  and  good  wishes. 

The  chief  divergence  of  views  will  relate  to  cooperation 
in  the  Home  Field.  Here  it  will  be  agreed  that  all  "do 
earnestly  desire  so  to  conduct  their  home  mission  work  as 
to  prevent  antagonism  or  hurtful  rivalry,  and  to  avoid  even 
the  appearance  on  the  part  of  either  of  interference  with  the 
work  of  the  other."  How  shall  this  desire  be  gratified?  We 
have  often  complained  that  the  Northern  Church  grievously 
interferes  with  our  work  in  our  home  mission  field :  how 
can  this  be  prevented,  so  that  we  may  live  side  by  side  in 
peace  ? 

The  first  part  of  the  answer  given  is  in  the  form  of  advice 
to  act  as  Abraham  and  Lot  did  to  prevent  quarrels  amongst 
their  herdmen,  or  as  missionaries  of  different  denominations 
do  in  foreign  fields,  in  observing  the  rules  of  ecclesiastical 
comity.  The  field  occupied  is  large  enough  for  both :  would 
it  not  be  better  for  each  Church  to  confine  itself  to  a  definite 
region,  where  all  its  strength  may  be  usefully  occupied, 
rather  than  waste  its  energies  in  wrangling  with  its  neigh- 
bor? True,  we  may  say,  that  the  Northern  Church  has  no 
business  in  our  territory ;  that  it  has  violated  fraternal  cour- 
tesy in  coming,  etc.  But  the  fact  is  that  it  is  here,  and  will 
not  go  away;  and  this  being  the  case,  what  is  it  best  to  do 


612 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


about  it?  They  now  come  offering  to  abstain  from  further 
encroachment,  if  the  Presbyteries  can  agree  on  a  division  of 
the  field.  Shall  we  accept  the  offer?  Or  shall  we  reject  it 
and  carry  on  the  strife?  By  all  means  let  us  struggle  to  the 
last,  if  necessary  to  maintain  the  true  and  the  right.  But 
we  do  not  see  that  it  is  necessary ;  and  therefore  we  think  it 
best  to  take  the  Committee's  advice. 

The  second  piece  of  advice  given  involves  the  idea  that 
it  would  be  better  for  one  of  our  weak  churches  to  have  the 
ministrations  of  a  Northern  minister,  who  has  been 
approved  by  a  Southern  Presbytery,  than  to  be  destitute  of 
the  services  of  the  sanctuary.  We  suppose  that  few  of  our 
people  would  say  that  they  would  prefer  seeing  the  congre- 
gation remain  vacant. 

The  next  paragraph  advises  members  of  the  Southern 
Church  who  go  North  to  unite  with  a  Northern  church,  and 
vice  versa.  Surely  this  is  good  advice.  It  is  certainly  better 
to  unite  with  a  Northern  Presbyterian  church  than  to 
remain  in  isolation  or  to  unite  with  some  other  denomina- 
tion. We  yield  to  no  one  in  devotion  to  the  peculiar  prin- 
ciples of  the  Southern  Church;  but  we  do  not  on  that 
account  think  that  if  one  is  so  situated  that  he  cannot  unite 
with  us  he  ought  to  stand  aloof  from  all  church  communion. 
And  we  think  the  same  principle  should  apply  in  the  case  of 
a  weakly,  dying  congregation.  If  there  are  two  such  bodies 
side  by  side,  let  them  unite  and  together  seek  life  and  health 
and  growth.  Being  is  more  important  than  well-being. 
Even  defective  Presbyterian  life  and  health  are  better  than 
sickness  and  death  in  connexion  with  the  soundest  Presby- 
terianism  on  earth. 

For  these  and  like  reasons,  we  cannot  help  regarding  it 
as  having  been  wise  on  the  part  of  the  Assembly  to  adopt 
the  Joint  Committee's  Report. 

Now,  what  will  be  the  effect  on  organic  union — the  effect 
of  this  treaty  of  peace  and  this  agreement  as  to  the  methods 
of  adjusting  difficulties  likely  to  arise  between  us?  To  this 
question  exactly  opposite  answers  have  been  given.  Some 
believe  that  the  inevitable  result  will  be  the  hastening  of 
union.     On  the  other  hand,  many  believe  that  it  will 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


613 


strongly  tend  to  prevent  it.  W e  concur  with  those  who  hold 
the  latter  view.  This  is  the  opinion  of  a  very  large  number 
in  our  own  Church,  and  of  Judge  Breckinridge  and  others  in 
the  Northern  Church,  who  for  that  reason  opposed  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Conference  Report  by  the  Northern  Assembly. 
Of  course,  no  one  can  tell  with  certainty.  But  it  will  remove 
many  of  the  causes  which  have  hitherto  led  to  the  discussion 
of  the  union  question  and  which  have  led  to  a  demand  for 
union  by  not  a  few  of  our  own  people.  It  seems  to  us  that 
it  will  be  generally  recognised — universally,  we  hope — that 
that  question  has  been  settled  by  the  adoption  of  this  treaty; 
and  that  on  that  subject,  at  least,  we  may  now  have  peace. 
We  think  it  must  have  been  plain  to  any  one  who  was  at 
the  last  Assembly  that  an  overwhelming  majority  of  its 
members  were  opposed  to  organic  union,  and  that  they 
hailed  the  recommendations  of  this  Report  as  settling  that 
question  for  long  years  to  come. — June  6. 


"The  Practical  Difference." 

Many  contradictory  statements  have  been  made  as  to 
the  views  and  feelings  of  Northern  Presbyterians  touching 
their  relations  to  the  colored  membership ;  but  instead  of 
listening  to  these,  it  may  be  more  important  to  hear  what 
is  said  by  that  membership.  The  organ  of  the  colored 
Presbyterians  in  the  South  is  the  Africo-Amencan  Presby- 
terian, edited  by  a  colored  man,  the  Rev.  Dr.  D.  J.  Sanders, 
who  was  a  member  of  the  last  Northern  General  Assembly. 
His  journal  may  be  fairly  regarded  as  representing  the 
views  of  the  colored  members  in  the  Northern  Church. 

In  order  to  show  what  is  thought  as  to  existing  relations 
and  as  to  the  effect  of  any  change  in  these,  we  here  publish 
two  editorial  articles  from  that  journal.  It  is  there  declared 
that  no  change  towards  the  adoption  of  Southern  views 
would  be  tolerated.  In  such  case,  it  is  said,  "The  ecclesias- 
tical negro  Presbyterian  ship  will  be  launched,  whether  to 
sink  beneath  the  angry  waves  of  ignorance  and  poverty,  or 
to  outweather  the  storm  and  glide  safely  into  the  genial 
waters  of  peace  and  prosperity." 


614 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


The  A frico- American  Presbyterian  says  : 

Rev.  Dr.  Otts,  editor  of  the  Southern  department  of  the 
Presbyterian  Journal,  in  discussing  "Colored  Churches  and 
Schools"  last  week,  would  have  been  far  more  accurate  had 
he  asserted  that  the  law  and  the  theory  of  the  Northern 
and  Southern  Presbyterian  Churches  are  identical  with 
reference  to  the  colored  people.  But  when  he  asserts  that 
*the  practice  is  identical,  he  not  only  abandons  the  position 
taken  some  weeks  ago  when  he  gave  the  real  reasons  why 
the  colored  people  did  not  remain  with  the  Southern 
Church  after  they  were  free;  but  he  asserts  what  it  is 
impossible  to  prove,  and  as  to  attendance  at  school,  if  he 
will  put  himself  to  the  trouble  to  find  out,  he  will  learn  that 
white  students  attend  the  schools  named  and  that  there  are 
always  more  or  less  of  colored  students  in  the  colleges  and 
theological  seminaries  of  the  Northern  Church.  Can  as 
much  be  said  of  any  school  controlled  by  the  Southern 
Church?  If  the  practice  is  the  same  in  both  Churches,  then 
it  will  be  in  order  for  Dr.  Otts  and  others  who  look  at 
things  from  his  point  of  observation  to  explain  why  the 
Southern  Church  has  made,  comparatively,  such  little  pro- 
gress in  educating  and  evangelising  the  negroes  since  "de 
wah." 

We  desire  no  controversy  with  this  learned  and  distin- 
guished friend,  but  it  is  clear  to  our  mind  that  such  state- 
ments published  in  a  paper  largely  circulated  at  the  North 
will  prove  misleading  (not  designedly  so,  of  course,)  to 
many  of  the  Northern  people.  The  truth  is,  with  respect  to 
the  social  amenities  of  life,  it  may  be  stated  in  general 
terms,  there  is  a  marked  resemblance  between  Northern  and 
Southern  Presbyterians  in  their  relations  to  the  colored 
people;  but  when  it  comes  to  the  question  of  the  practical 
ecclesiastical  equality  of  the  colored  people  in  the  various 
courts  and  schools  of  the  Church  and  the  house  of  God, 
the  only  things  that  can  be  properly  considered  in  these 
discussions,  the  differences  are  wholly  too  great  for  candid 
denial.  The  former  must  be  set  down  to  the  account  of 
racial  feelings,  the  latter  to  that  of  the  wider  and  deeper 
effects  of  the  grace  of  God,  which  latter  impresses  the  truth 
that  in  Christ  all  are  one. 

In  relation  to  the  whole  colored  question  in  practice  it 
remains  to  be  seen  whether  the  Northern  Church  is  to  go 
to  the  position  of  the  Southern  Church  or  vice  versa.  The 
vote  on  the  Stryker  amendment  in  the  late  Assembly  and 
the  general  response  from  the  Church  so  far  indicated  shows 
that  our  Church  remains  unchanged. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


615 


The  editor  in  chief  of  the  Presbyterian  Journal,  last  week, 
undertook  to  answer  for  the  Rev.  Dr.  Otts,  editor  of  the  South- 
ern department  of  that  paper,  with  reference  to  an  editorial 
article,  published  in  this  paper  two  weeks  ago  calling  attention 
to  Dr.  Otts's  inaccurate  statement,  to  the  effect  that  there  is  no 
practical  difference  between  the  Northern  and  Southern  Pres- 
byterian Churches  in  dealing  with  the  colored  people. 

As  formerly  intimated  we  desire  no  controversy  over  this 
matter.  It  is  so  generally  known  that  the  practice  of  these 
two  Churches  touching  this  question  is  not  identical  (identical 
is  Dr.  Otts's  word)  that  we  deem  it  superfluous  to  follow  the 
Journal  in  its  vain  endeavor  to  make  it  appear  otherwise  in  the 
interest  of  "Presbyterian  Reunion,"  and  we  will  not  pause  to 
answer  its  questions,  which  are  not  pertinent  to  the  issue, 
though  they  can  be  conclusively  answered. 

We  repeat  that  it  is  impossible  to  prove  that  the  practice  of 
the  Northern  and  Southern  Presbyterian  Churches  with  refer- 
ence to  the  colored  people  is  identical,  and  we  will  add,  that  no 
one  knows  better  than  the  Presbyterian  Journal  and  the  intelli- 
gent people  of  both  Churches  that  this  is  the  only  insuperable 
barrier  to  reunion.  This  has  been  apparent  in  all  negotiations 
looking  to  closer  union  between  the  churches.  No  one  realised 
it  more  than  the  members  of  the  late  Conference  Committees, 
and  this  was  why  an  attempt  was  made  to  deny  the  facts  of 
history  in  the  report  to  the  last  Assembly. 

But  argument,  from  us,  is  not  needed.  Read  what  the 
Journal  says  in  its  closing  paragraph : 

"As  far  as  we  are  able  to  see,  the  only  practical  difference 
in  the  matter  between  the  two  is  this :  The  Southern  Church  is 
laboring  among  the  colored  people  and  educating  colored  men 
for  the  ministry,  and  forming  them  into  separate  churches  and 
Presbyteries,  with  the  intention,  as  best  for  them,  to  have 
eventually  a  separate  Assembly  also — a  separate  national 
colored  Presbyterian  organisation,  but  closely  connected  with 
the  white  for  sympathy  and  help ;  while  our  Church  has  not 
publicly  accepted  that  policy." 

It  will  be  observed  that  our  contemporary  concedes  the  main 
and  all-important  point  in  the  matter  by  simply  stating  the  fact 
as  to  the  policy  of  the  two  Churches.  The  difference  between 
the  policy  of  the  respective  Churches  is  as  divergent  as  the 
poles,  so  it  comes  our  turn  to  ask  a  question.  If  the  policies 
of  these  two  Churches  are  diametrically  opposed  to  each  other, 
how  can  the  practice,  which  is  to  end  in  the  legitimate  result  of 
those  policies,  be  identical?    We  await  information. 

The  Journal  may  answer,  "Our  Church  has  not,  publicly, 
accepted  that  policy" — meaning  the  policy  of  the  Southern 
Church.    That  is  to  say,  "Our  Church  is  stealthily  coming 


616 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


round  to  the  policy  of  the  Southern  Church,  and  will,  some 
day,  publicly  so  declare."  It  may  be  sufficient  to  say  that  all 
efforts  to  make  the  Church  do  that  or  anything  resembling  it 
have  signally  bailed,  and  whenever  she  turns  her  face  in  that 
direction  by  any  responsible  action,  then  a  period  will  be  put  to 
all  further  discussion,  and  "the  ecclesiastical  negro  Presby- 
terian ship  will  be  launched,  whether  to  sink  beneath  the  angry 
waves  of  ignorance  and  poverty,  or  to  outweather  the  storm 
and  glide  safely  into  the  genial  waters  of  peace  and  prosperity." 

For  our  part,  we  are  unwilling  to  force  matters.  We  desire 
to  perform  faithfully  the  duties  of  the  hour,  and  leave  the 
future  in  the  hands  of  him  who  does  all  things  well. — Aug.  I. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


617 


EVOLUTION. 
Address. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Alumni  Association: 

At  the  same  time  that  you  honored  me  with  an  invitation 
to  deliver  an  address  before  you  on  this  occasion,  the  Board 
of  Directors  of  the  Theological  Seminary,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  "skepticism  in  the  world  is  using  alleged  discov- 
eries in  science  to  impugn  the  word  of  God,"  requested  me 
"to  give  fully  my  views,  as  taught  in  this  institution,  upon 
Evolution,  as  it  respects  the  world,  the  lower  animals,  and 
man."  Inasmuch  as  several  members  of  the  Board  are  also 
members  of  this  Association,  and  both  Board  and  Associa- 
tion feel  the  same  interest  in  the  Seminary,  I  have  supposed 
that  I  could  not  select  a  subject  more  likely  to  meet  with 
your  approval  than  the  one  suggested  to  me  by  the  Directors. 

I  am  all  the  more  inclined  to  make  this  choice,  as  it  will 
afford  me  the  opportunity  of  showing  you  that  additional 
study  has,  in  some  respects,  to  a  certain  extent  modified 
my  views  since  I  expressed  them  to  many  of  you  in  the 
class-room. 

As  is  intimated  in  the  Board's  request,  I  may  assume  that 
your  chief  interest  in  the  topic  is  not  in  its  scientific  aspects, 
but  in  relations  it  may  bear  to  the  word  of  God ;  and  there- 
fore I  will  speak  mainly  of  these  relations.  Not  that  I 
regard  you  as  indifferent  to  science ;  from  my  past  acquaint- 
ance with  you,  I  have  too  high  an  appreciation  of  your 
intelligence  to  regard  that  as  possible;  for  no  intelligent 
person  can  be  indifferent  to  knowledge,  and  especially 
can  no  intelligent  child  of  God  be  indifferent  to  a  knowledge 
of  his  Father's  handiwork,  or  of  the  methods  by  which  he 
controls  the  course  of  his  universe.  Still,  on  the  present 
occasion,  it  is  doubtless  the  relations  between  science,  or 
that  which  claims  to  be  science,  and  the  Bible,  and  not 
science  itself,  that  should  receive  our  attention. 

Before  entering  on  the  discussion  of  the  specific  subject 
of  Evolution  in  itself  and  in  its  relations  to  the  Sacred  Script- 
ures, it  may  be  well  to  consider  the  relations  subsisting 


618 


DR.  JAMKS  WOODROW. 


between  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures  and  the  teachings 
of  natural  science  generally.  We  hear  much  of  the  harmony 
of  science  and  Scripture,  of  their  reconciliation,  and  the  like. 
Now,  is  it  antecedently  probable  that  there  is  room  for 
either  agreement  or  disagreement?  We  do  not  speak  of 
the  harmony  of  mathematics  and  chemistry,  or  of  zoology 
and  astronomy,  or  the  reconciliation  of  physics  and  meta- 
physics. Why?  Because  the  subject  matter  of  each  of 
these  branches  of  knowledge  is  so  different  from  the  rest. 
It  is  true  we  may  say  that  some  assertion  made  by  astron- 
omy cannot  be  correct,  because  it  contradicts  some  known 
truth  of  mathematics  or  of  physics.  But  yet,  in  such  a  case, 
we  would  not  proceed  to  look  for  harmony  or  reconciliation ; 
we  would  confine  ourselves  to  the  task  of  removing  the  con- 
tradiction by  seeking  the  error  which  caused  it,  and  which  it 
proved  to  exist ;  for  we  know  that,  as  truth  is  one,  two  con- 
tradictories cannot  both  be  true. 

May  it  not  be  that  we  have  here  a  representation  of  the 
probable  relations  between  the  Bible  and  science — that  their 
contents  are  so  entirely  different  that  it  is  vain  and  mis- 
leading to  be  searching  for  harmonies ;  and  that  we  should 
confine  our  efforts  to  the  examination  of  real  or  seeming 
contradictions  which  may  emerge,  and  rest  satisfied,  with- 
out attempting  to  go  farther,  when  we  have  discovered  that 
there  is  no  contradiction,  if  it  was  only  seeming,  or  have 
pointed  out  the  error  that  caused  it,  if  real? 

Let  us  test  this  point  by  examining  special  cases  which 
have  arisen,  and  with  regard  to  which  conclusions  satis- 
factory to  all  believers  in  the  Bible  have  now  been  reached. 

In  Genesis  I  :i6,  the  Bible  speaks  of  the  two  great  lights, 
the  sun  and  the  moon,  and  of  the  stars  as  if  these  were  of 
comparatively  insignificant  size  and  importance.  It  says 
further,  Joshua  10  :13,  that  "the  sun  stood  still,  and  the  moon 
stayed" ;  "the  sun  stood  still  in  the  midst  of  the  heaven,  and 
hasted  not  to  go  down  about  a  whole  day."  In  these  and 
other  passages  the  Bible  has  been  thought  to  teach  that  the 
sun  and  the  moon  are  larger  than  any  of  the  stars,  and  that 
sun,  moon,  and  stars,  having  been  created  for  the  benefit  of 
man,  revolve  around  the  earth  as  a  centre.   On  the  scientific 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


619 


side,  two  forms  of  astronomy  have  been  presented:  the 
Ptolemaic,  teaching  that  the  earth  is  the  centre  of  the  uni- 
verse ;  the  Copernican,  teaching  that  the  sun  is  the  centre 
of  our  planetary  system.  Those  who  asked  for  harmony 
between  science  and  the  Bible  found  wonderful  confirma- 
tion of  the  Bible  in  the  Ptolemaic  astronomy,  and  of  the 
Ptolemaic  astronomy  in  the  Bible.  But  gradually  it  came 
to  be  seen  and  admitted  that,  whatever  might  be  its  teach- 
ings on  other  subjects,  the  Bible  was  at  least  not  intended  to 
teach  astronomy;  and  for  centuries  general  assent  has  been 
given  to  the  words  of  Calvin :  "Moses  does  not  speak  with 
philosophical  acuteness  on  occult  mysteries,  but  relates 
those  things  which  are  everywhere  observed,  even  by  the 
uncultivated."  .  .  .  "He  who  would  learn  astronomy,  and 
other  recondite  arts,  let  him  go  elsewhere."  Thus  it  has 
come  to  be  believed  that  all  we  are  entitled  to  ask,  as 
regards  the  relations  between  astronomy  and  the  Bible,  is 
that  they  shall  not  contradict  each  other ;  not  that  they  shall 
agree  with  each  other.  Believers  in  the  Bible  as  such  are 
indifferent  as  to  what  form  of  astronomy  may  prevail.  Cal- 
vin's belief  in  the  geocentric  system  no  more  interfered  with 
his  confidence  in  the  Bible  than  does  our  belief  in  the  helio- 
centric system  interfere  with  our  confidence  in  the  same 
sure  word. 

Geography  furnishes  another  illustration  of  this  same 
kind  of  harmony  between  the  Bible  and  science,  which  is 
not  less  instructive.  For  centuries  geographers  taught  as 
science  that  which  was  claimed  to  be  in  perfect  accord  with 
the  Bible  in  such  passages  as  these:  "They  shall  gather 
together  his  elect  from  the  four  winds,  from  one  end  of 
heaven  to  the  other;"  "I  saw  four  angels  standing  on  the 
four  corners  of  the  earth,  holding  the  four  winds  of  the 
earth;"  "And  shall  go  out  to  deceive  the  nations  of  the  four 
quarters  of  the  earth."  So  the  Bible  and  science  were  thus 
found  further  to  confirm  each  other.  But,  again,  in  process 
of  time  it  came  to  be  seen  that  neither  the  words  of  the  Bible 
nor  the  phenomena  of  the  earth  taught  what  had  been  sup- 
posed;  that  the  Bible  taught  nothing  about  the  shape  or 
other  characteristics  of  the  earth  in  these  or  other  passages 


620 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


and  that  the  phenomena  of  the  earth,  rightly  understood, 
did  not  teach  that  it  is  a  four-cornered  immovable  plain. 
Here,  again,  it  is  seen  that  all  we  should  ask  for  is  not  har- 
mony, but  absence  of  contradiction.  The  examination  of 
other  cases  would  lead  to  the  same  conclusion. 

The  Bible  does  not  teach  science ;  and  to  take  its  language 
in  a  scientific  sense  is  grossly  to  pervert  its  meaning. 

Yet  it  is  not  correct  in  any  of  these  cases  to  say  that  the 
language  of  the  Bible  does  not  express  the  exact  truth;  that 
it  is  accommodated  to  the  weakness  of  the  popular  mind,  to 
the  ignorance  of  the  unlearned.  We  are  often  told  by  some 
defenders  of  the  Bible  that  it  speaks  inaccurately  when  it 
says  that  the  sun  rises  and  sets,  or  that  it  stood  still  upon 
Gibeon.  But  what  is  accurate  speech?  It  is  speech  which 
conveys  exactly  the  thought  intended.  Now,  if  to  say  that 
the  sun  rises  conveys  exactly  the  thought  intended,  wherein 
can  this  expression  be  called  inaccurate?  There  is  no  inten- 
tion to  explain  the  cause  of  the  fact  of  rising.  This  fact 
exists  equally,  whether  produced  by  the  sun's  absolute 
motion  in  space  or  by  the  rotation  of  the  earth  on  its  axis. 
The  meaning  is,  that  the  relative  position  of  our  horizon  and 
the  sun  has  changed  in  a  certain  way;  and  in  stating  that 
the  change  has  taken  place,  there  is  not  the  remotest  refer- 
ence to  the  cause.  In  passing  from  Europe  to  the  United 
States,  we  say  that  we  go  westward.  But  we  are  met  by  the 
assertion,  uttered  in  a  patronising  tone  of  superior  wisdom : 
"Oh  no ;  you  speak  erroneously ;  you  show  that  you  are  not 
acquainted  with  the  real  state  of  the  facts ;  or  if  you  are,  you 
are  speaking  inaccurately  for  the  sake  of  accommodating 
yourself  to  your  ignorant  hearers ;  you  make  a  false  state- 
ment because  your  hearers  could  not  otherwise  gain  any 
idea  from  you  on  the  subject.  The  truth  is,  that  when  you 
thought  you  were  going  westward,  you  were  going  east- 
ward at  a  rapid  rate;  what  you  call  your  going  westward 
was  merely  stopping  a  small  part  of  the  eastward  motion 
you  had  in  common  with  the  surface  of  the  earth."  Now  it 
would  probably  be  hard  to  discuss  this  sage  utterance  in  a 
perfectly  respectful  manner.  But  wherein  does  it  differ 
from  the  tone  of  those  who  apologise  for  the  "gross  form" 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


621 


in  which  the  Scriptures  convey  instruction,  for  their  not 
speaking  with  "greater  exactness,"  and  the  like?  A 
phenomenal  truth  is  as  much  a  truth  as  is  the  so-called 
scientific  explanation  of  it;  and  words  which  accurately 
convey  a  knowledge  of  the  phenomenon  are  as  exactly  true 
as  those  which  accurately  convey  a  knowledge  of  the  expla- 
nation. Science  has  to  do  almost  exclusively  with  the  expla- 
nation ;  it  is  interested  in  phenomenal  truths  only  on  account 
of  their  relations  to  each  other;  while  the  Bible  speaks  solely 
of  the  phenomenal  truths  involved  in  natural  science  for 
their  own  sake,  and  never  for  the  sake  of  the  explanation  of 
them  or  their  scientific  relations  to  each  other. 

Admitting  these  principles,  which  are  so  readily  admitted 
in  their  application  to  the  cases  already  considered,  many 
difficulties  usually  regarded  as  of  the  gravest  character  at 
once  disappear.  For  example,  in  Leviticus  11  and  Deut. 
14  the  divinely  inspired  lawgiver  classes  the  coney  and  the 
hare  as  animals  that  chew  the  cud ;  he  places  the  bat 
amongst  the  birds ;  he  speaks  of  the  locust,  the  beetle,  and 
the  grasshopper  as  flying  creeping  things  that  go  upon  all 
four.  Now  if  these  representations  are  to  be  taken  as  scien- 
tific statements,  we  must  without  hesitation  say  there  is 
here  a  sad  batch  of  blunders :  for  the  coney  and  the  hare  do 
not  chew  the  cud;  the  bat  is  not  a  bird;  the  locust,  the 
beetle,  the  grasshopper,  and  other  flying  creeping  things,  do 
not  go  upon  four,  but  upon  six.  But  now  suppose  that  the 
words  used  conveyed  exactly  the  knowledge  that  was 
intended,  are  they  not  correctly  used?  We  understand  by 
"chewing  the  cud"  bringing  back  into  the  mouth,  for  the 
purpose  of  being  chewed,  food  which  had  been  previously 
swallowed ;  but  if  those  to  whom  the  words  in  question 
were  addressed  understood  by  them  that  motion  of  the 
mouth  which  accompanies  chewing,  then  they  would  recog- 
nise by  this  motion  the  hare  and  the  coney  as  rightly  char- 
acterised. So  with  the  bat — in  a  scientific  sense  it  is  not  a 
bird,  it  is  a  mammal ;  hence,  if  we  are  teaching  natural  his- 
tory, we  would  grievously  err  in  making  such  a  classifica- 
tion. But  in  describing  flying  things  which  do  not  creep,  the 
bat  was  rightly  placed  where  it  is.    Two  years  ago  the 


622 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Legislature  of  South  Carolina  enacted  that  "it  shall  not  be 
lawful  for  any  person  ...  to  destroy  any  bird  whose  princi- 
pal food  is  insects,  .  .  .  comprising  all  the  varieties  of  birds 
represented  by  the  several  families  of  bats,  whip-poor-wills, 
....  humming  birds,  blue  birds,"  etc.  Does  this  law 
prove  that  the  Legislature  did  not  know  that  the  bat  in  a 
natural  history  sense  is  not  a  bird?  They  were  not  under- 
taking to  teach  zoology:  they  wished  to  point  out  the  fly- 
ing animals  whose  principal  food  is  insects,  and  with  all 
propriety  and  accuracy  they  did  it.  So  "going  on  all  four," 
when  used  in  reference  to  the  motion  of  animals,  may  fairly 
be  taken  as  applying  to  the  prone  position  of  the  animal 
which  is  common  to  the  quadruped  and  the  insect,  and  not 
at  all  to  the  number  of  feet.  In  this  sense  the  phrase  with 
perfect  accuracy  applies  to  the  horizontal  position  of  the 
locust  and  other  insects ;  while  the  important  natural  history 
fact,  that  the  insect  has  six  feet,  and  not  four,  is  perfectly 
immaterial. 

In  all  these  instances  I  think  it  has  been  made  to  appear 
that  there  is  no  contradiction;  but  he  would  be  bold  indeed 
who  would  claim  that  there  is  here  harmony  between 
science  and  the  Bible.  On  the  contrary,  is  it  not  most 
pointedly  suggested  that  any  exposition  of  Scripture  which 
seems  to  show  that  natural  science  is  taught,  is  thereby 
proved  to  be  incorrect?  For  this  reason,  I  may  say  in  pass- 
ing, I  am  strongly  inclined  to  disbelieve  the  popular  inter- 
pretations of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  which  find  there 
a  compendium  of  the  science  of  geology. 

As  in  the  example  above  given,  so  in  all  other  cases  of 
supposed  contradiction  of  the  Bible  by  science,  I  have  found 
that  the  fair  honest  application  of  such  principles  has 
caused  the  contradiction  to  disappear.  I  have  found  noth- 
ing in  my  study  of  the  Holy  Bible  and  of  natural  science 
that  shakes  my  firm  belief  in  the  divine  inspiration  of  every 
word  of  that  Bible,  and  in  the  consequent  absolute  truth,  the 
absolute  inerrancy,  of  every  expression  which  it  contains, 
from  beginning  to  end.  While  there  are  not  a  few  things 
which  I  confess  myself  wholly  unable  to  understand,  yet  I 
have  found  nothing  which  contradicts  other  known  truth. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


623 


It  ought  to  be  observed  that  this  is  a  very  different  thing 
from  saying  that  I  have  found  everything  in  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  to  be  in  harmony  with  natural  science.  To  reach 
this  result  it  would  be  necessary  to  know  the  exact  mean- 
ing of  every  part  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  exact  amount  of 
truth  in  each  scientific  proposition.  But  to  show  that  in 
any  case  there  is  no  contradiction,  all  that  is  needed  is  to 
show  that  a  reasonable  supposition  of  what  the  passage  in 
question  may  mean  does  not  contradict  the  proved  truth 
in  science.  We  do  not  need  to  show  that  our  interpretation 
must  be  correct,  but  only  that  it  may  be  correct — that  it  is 
not  reached  by  distortion  or  perversion,  but  by  an  honest 
application  of  admitted  principles  of  exegesis. 

It  should  be  noted  that  the  matters  respecting  which 
there  are  supposed  to  be  inconsistencies  between  the  teach- 
ings of  science  and  the  Bible  are  such  as  cannot  possibly 
directly  affect  any  moral  or  religious  truth ;  but  that  they 
derive  their  importance  to  the  Christian  believer  solely  from 
the  bearing  they  may  have  on  the  truthfulness  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. In  the  name  of  Christianity,  belief  in  the  existence 
of  people  living  on  the  other  side  of  the  earth  has  been 
denounced  as  absurd  and  heretical ;  but  how  is  any  moral 
duty  or  any  doctrine  of  religion  affected  by  this  belief? — 
unless  indeed,  it  may  be  from  doubt  it  may  cast  upon  the 
truthfulness  of  the  Bible.  And  with  this  exception,  what 
difference  can  it  make  with  regard  to  any  relation  between 
ourselves  and  our  fellow-men,  or  between  ourselves  and 
God  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  whether  the  earth  came  into 
existence  six  thousand  years  or  six  thousand  million  years 
ago;  whether  the  earth  is  flat  or  round;  whether  it  is  the 
centre  of  the  universe  or  on  its  edge ;  whether  there  has  been 
one  creation  or  many ;  whether  the  Xoachian  deluge  covered 
a  million  or  two  hundred  million  square  miles  ;  and  last  of 
all,  I  may  add,  whether  the  species  of  organic  beings  now 
on  earth  were  created  mediately  or  immediately? 

After  these  preliminary  observations,  I  proceed  to  discuss 
the  main  subject  of  this  address. 

Before  answering  the  question,  What  do  you  think  of 
Evolution?   I  must  ask.  What  do  you  mean  by  Evolution? 


6.24 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


When  thinking  of  the  origin  of  anything,  we  may  inquire, 
Did  it  come  into  existence  just  as  it  is?  or  did  it  pass  through 
a  series  of  changes  from  a  previous  state  in  order  to  reach 
its  present  condition?  For  example,  if  we  think  of  a  tree, 
we  can  conceive  of  it  as  having  come  immediately  into 
existence  just  as  we  see  it;  or,  we  may  conceive  of  it  as  hav- 
ing begun  its  existence  as  a  minute  cell  in  connexion  with  a 
similar  tree,  and  as  having  reached  its  present  condition  by 
passing  through  a  series  of  changes,  continually  approach- 
ing and  at  length  reaching  the  form  before  us.  Or  thinking 
of  the  earth,  we  can  conceive  of  it  as  having  come  into 
existence  with  its  present  complex  character;  or  we  may 
conceive  of  it  as  having  begun  to  exist  in  the  simplest 
possible  state,  and  as  having  reached  its  present  condition 
by  passing  through  a  long  series  of  stages,  each  derived 
from  its  predecessor.  To  the  second  of  these  modes,  we 
apply  the  term  "Evolution."  It  is  evidently  equivalent  to 
"derivation" ;  or,  in  the  case  of  organic  beings,  to  "descent." 

This  definition  or  description  of  Evolution  does  not 
include  any  reference  to  the  power  by  which  the  origination 
is  effected ;  it  refers  to  the  mode,  and  to  the  mode  alone.  So 
far  as  the  definition  is  concerned,  the  immediate  existence 
might  be  attributed  to  God  or  to  chance ;  the  derived  exist- 
ence to  inherent  uncreated  law,  or  to  an  almighty  personal 
Creator,  acting  according  to  laws  of  his  own  framing.  It 
is  important  to  consider  this  distinction  carefully,  for  it  is 
wholly  inconsistent  with  much  that  is  said  and  believed  by 
both  advocates  and  opponents  of  Evolution.  It  is  not 
unusual  to  represent  Creation  and  Evolution  as  mutually 
exclusive,  as  contradictory:  Creation  meaning  the  imme- 
diate calling  out  of  non-existence  by  divine  power;  Evolu- 
tion, derivation  from  previous  forms  or  states  by  inherent, 
self-originated  or  eternal  laws,  independent  of  all  con- 
nexion with  divine  personal  power.  Hence,  if  this  is  correct, 
those  who  believe  in  Creation  are  theists ;  those  who  believe 
in  Evolution  are  atheists.  But  there  is  no  propriety  in  thus 
mingling  in  the  definition  two  things  which  are  so  com- 
pletely different  as  the  power  that  produces  an  effect,  and 
the  mode  in  which  the  effect  is  produced. 


HIS  TEACHINGS 


625 


The  definition  now  given,  which  seems  to  me  the  only  one 
which  can  be  given  within  the  limits  of  natural  science 
necessarily  excludes  the  possibility  of  the  questions  whether 
the  doctrine  is  theistic  or  atheistic,  whether  it  is  religious  or 
irreligious,  moral  or  immoral.  It  would  be  as  plainly  absurd 
to  ask  these  questions  as  to  inquire  whether  the  doctrine  is 
white  or  black,  square  or  round,  light  or  heavy.  In  this 
respect  it  is  like  every  other  hypothesis  or  theory  in  science. 
These  are  qualities  which  do  not  belong  to  such  subjects. 
The  only  question  that  can  rationally  be  put  is.  Is  the  doc- 
trine true  or  false?  If  this  statement  is  correct, — and  it  is 
almost  if  not  quite  self-evident — it  should  at  once  end  all 
disputes  not  only  between  Evolution  and  religion,  but 
between  natural  science  and  religion  universally.  To  prove 
that  the  universe,  the  earth,  and  the  organic  beings  upon 
the  earth,  had  once  been  in  a  different  condition  from  the 
present,  and  had  gradually  reached  the  state  which  we  now 
see,  could  not  disprove  or  tend  to  disprove  the  existence  of 
God  or  the  possession  by  him  of  a  single  attribute  ever 
thought  to  belong  to  him.  How  can  our  belief  in  this  doc- 
trine tend  to  weaken  or  destroy  our  belief  that  he  is  infinite, 
that  he  is  eternal,  that  he  is  unchangeable,  in  his  being,  or 
his  wisdom,  or  his  power,  or  his  holiness,  or  his  justice,  or 
his  goodness,  or  his  truth?  Or  how  can  our  rejection  of  the 
doctrine  either  strengthen  or  weaken  our  belief  in  him?  Or 
how  can  either  our  acceptance  or  rejection  of  Evolution 
affect  our  love  to  God,  or  our  recognition  of  our  obligation 
to  obey  and  serve  him — carefully  to  keep  all  his  command- 
ments and  ordinances? 

True,  when  we  go  outside  the  sphere  of  natural  science, 
and  inquire  whence  this  universe,  questions  involving 
theism  forthwith  arise.  Whether  it  came  into  existence 
immediately  or  mediately  is  not  material ;  but  what  or  who 
brought  it  into  existence?  Did  it  spring  from  the  fortuitous 
concurrence  of  eternally-existing  atoms?  Are  the  matter 
and  the  forces  which  act  upon  it  in  certain  definite  ways 
eternal;  and  is  the  universe,  as  we  behold  it,  the  result  of 
their  blind  unconscious  operation?  Or,  on  the  other  hand, 
was  the  universe  in  all  its  orderly  complexity  brought  into 


40— w 


626 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


existence  by  the  will  of  an  eternal,  personal,  spiritual  God, 
one  who  is  omniscient,  omnipresent,  omnipotent?  These 
questions  of  course  involve  the  very  foundations  of  religion 
and  morality ;  but  they  lie  wholly  outside  of  natural  science ; 
and  are,  I  repeat,  not  in  the  least  affected  by  the  decision 
of  that  other  question,  Did  the  universe  come  into  its  pres- 
ent condition  immediately  or  mediately;  instantly,  in  a 
moment,  or  gradually,  through  a  long  series  of  intermediate 
stages?  They  are  not  affected  by,  nor  do  they  affect,  the 
truth  or  falsehood  of  Evolution. 

But,  admitting  that  the  truth  of  Theism  is  not  involved  in 
the  question  before  us,  it  may  fairly  be  asked,  Does  not  the 
doctrine  of  Evolution  contradict  the  teachings  of  the  Bible? 
This  renders  it  necessary  to  inquire  whether  the  Bible 
teaches  anything  whatever  as  to  the  mode  in  which  the 
world  and  its  inhabitants  were  brought  into  their  present 
state ;  and  if  so,  what  that  teaching  is. 

It  does  not  seem  to  be  antecedently  probable  that  there 
would  be  any  specific  teaching  there  on  the  subject.  We 
have  learned  that  "the  Scriptures  principally  teach  what 
man  is  to  believe  concerning  God,  and  what  duty  God 
requires  of  man" ;  and  that  "the  whole  counsel  of  God,  con- 
cerning all  things  necessary  for  his  own  glory,  man's  salva- 
tion, faith,  and  life,  is  either  expressly  set  down  in  Scripture, 
or  by  good  and  necessary  consequence  may  be  deduced  from 
Scripture."  But  this  does  not  include  the  principles  of  nat- 
ural science  in  any  of  its  branches.  We  have  already  seen 
that  it  certainly  does  not  include  the  teaching  of  astronomy 
or  of  geography ;  it  does  not  include  anatomy  or  physiology, 
zoology  or  botany — a  scientific  statement  of  the  structure, 
growth,  and  classification  of  animals  and  plants.  Is  it  any 
more  likely  that  it  includes  an  account  of  the  limits  of  the 
variation  which  the  kinds  of  plants  and  animals  may 
undergo,  or  the  circumstances  and  conditions  by  which 
such  variation  may  be  affected?  We  would  indeed  expect 
to  find  God's  relation  to  the  world  and  all  its  inhabitants  set 
forth ;  but  he  is  equally  the  Creator  and  Preserver,  however 
it  may  have  pleased  him,  through  his  creating  and  preserv- 
ing power,  to  have  brought  the  universe  into  its  present 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


627 


state.  He  is  as  really  and  truly  your  Creator,  though  you 
are  the  descendant  of  hundreds  of  ancestors,  as  he  was  of  the 
first  particle  of  matter  which  he  called  into  being,  or  the  first 
plant  or  animal,  or  the  first  angel  in  heaven. 

So  much  at  least  seems  clear — that  whatever  the  Bible 
may  say  touching  the  mode  of  creation,  is  merely  incidental 
to  its  main  design,  and  must  be  interpreted  accordingly. 
Weil  may  we  repeat  with  Calvin,  "He  who  would  learn 
astronomy  and  other  recondite  arts,  let  him  go  elsewhere." 

It  is  further  to  be  observed,  that  whatever  may  be  taught 
is  contained  in  the  first  part  of  the  oldest  book  in  the  world, 
in  a  dead  language,  with  a  very  limited  literature ;  that  the 
record  is  extremely  brief,  compressing  an  account  of  the 
most  stupendous  events  into  the  smallest  compass.  Now 
the  more  remote  from  the  present  is  any  event  recorded  in 
human  language,  the  more  completely  any  language 
deserves  to  be  called  dead,  the  more  limited  its  contempo- 
raneous literature,  the  briefer  the  record  itself,  the  more 
obscure  must  that  record  be — the  more  difficult  it  must  be 
to  ascertain  its  exact  meaning,  and  especially  that  part  of 
its  meaning  which  is  merely  incidental  to  its  main  design. 
As  to  the  portions  which  bear  on  that  design,  the  obscurity 
will  be  illuminated  by  the  light  cast  backwards  from  the 
later  and  fuller  and  clearer  parts  of  the  Bible.  But  on  that 
with  which  we  are  now  specially  concerned  no  such  light 
is  likely  to  fall. 

To  illustrate  this  point,  I  may  refer  to  other  parts  of  this 
early  record.  In  the  account  of  the  temptation  of  Eve,  we 
have  a  circumstantial  and  apparently  very  plain  description 
of  the  being  that  tempted  her.  It  was  a  serpent;  and  we 
read  that  "the  serpent  was  more  subtil  than  any  beast  of 
the  field."  Further,  it  was  a  beast  which  was  to  go  upon  its 
belly,  and  whose  head  could  be  bruised.  Surely,  it  might  be 
said,  it  is  perfectly  plain  that  the  record  should  cause  us  to 
believe  that  it  was  a  mere  beast  of  the  field,  a  mere  serpent, 
that  tempted  Eve.  But  to  narrate  the  fall  of  man  is  not 
simply  incidental  to  the  design  of  the  Bible;  on  the  con- 
trary, its  chief  design  may  be  said  to  be  to  record  that  fall 
and  to  show  how  man  may  recover  from  it.    Hence,  from 


628 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


the  later  parts  of  the  Bible  we  learn  that  the  tempter  was  no 
beast  of  the  field,  as  seems  to  be  so  clearly  stated ;  but  it  was 
"the  dragon,  that  old  serpent,  which  is  the  devil,  even 
Satan,"  whatever  may  have  been  the  guise  in  which  he 
appeared  to  our  first  mother. 

Then  from  the  sentence  pronounced  upon  the  serpent,  "I 
will  put  enmity  between  thee  and  the  woman,  and  between 
thy  seed  and  her  seed;  it  shall  bruise  thy  head,  and  thou 
shalt  bruise  his  heel," — from  this  it  would  seem  to  be  clear 
that  what  we  are  here  taught,  and  all  that  we  are  here 
taught,  is  that  the  woman's  son  was  to  crush  the  head  of 
the  beast,  whilst  his  own  heel  would  be  bruised ;  whereas 
we  learn  from  books  which  come  after  that  this  sentence 
really  contains  the  germ  of  the  entire  plan  of  salvation ; 
and  that  the  woman's  son  who  was  to  bruise  the  serpent's 
head  at  such  cost  to  himself  is  Jesus  the  Saviour,  who  on 
Calvary  through  his  death  destroyed  "him  that  had  the 
power  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil."  Now,  since  in  these 
cases,  where  the  meaning  seems  to  be  so  unmistakably 
clear,  and  where  the  subject-matter  belongs  to  the  main 
design  of  the  book,  and  yet  where  the  real  meaning  is  so 
entirely  different,  as  we  learn  from  the  later  Scriptures, 
how  cautious  we  should  be  not  to  feel  too  confident  that 
we  have  certainly  reached  the  true  meaning  in  cases  where 
the  subject-matter  is  merely  incidental,  and  where  no  light 
falls  back  from  the  later  Scriptures  to  guide  us  aright! 

The  actual  examination  of  the  sacred  record  seems  to  me 
to  show  that  the  obscurity  exists  which  might  have  been 
reasonably  anticipated.  It  is  clear  that  God  is  there  repre- 
sented as  doing  whatever  is  done.  But  whether  in  this 
record  the  limitless  universe  to  the  remotest  star  or  nebula 
is  spoken  of,  or  only  some  portion  of  it,  and  if  the  latter, 
what  portion,  I  cannot  tell.  And  if  there  is  an  account  of 
the  methods  according  to  which  God  proceeded  in  his 
creative  work,  I  cannot  perceive  it.  It  is  said  that  God 
created ;  but,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  it  is  not  how  he 
created.  We  are  told  nothing  that  contradicts  the  supposi- 
tion, for  example,  that,  in  creating  our  earth  and  the  solar 
system  of  which  it  forms  a  part,  he  brought  the  whole 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


629 


into  existence  very  much  in  the  condition  in  which  we  now 
see  the  several  parts;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  that  he  pro- 
ceeded by  the  steps  indicated  in  what  is  called  the  nebular 
hypothesis.  Just  as  the  contrary  beliefs  of  Calvin  and  our- 
selves touching  the  centre  of  the  solar  system  fail  to  con- 
tradict a  single  word  in  the  Bible,  so  the  contrary  beliefs  of 
those  who  accept  and  those  who  reject  the  nebular 
hypothesis  fail  to  contradict  a  single  word  of  the  Bible. 

I  regard  the  same  statements  as  true  when  made  respect- 
ing the  origin  of  the  almost  numberless  species  of  organic 
beings  which  now  exist  and  which  have  existed  in  the  past. 
In  the  Bible  I  find  nothing  that  contradicts  the  belief  that 
God  immediately  brought  into  existence  each  form  inde- 
pendently; or  that  contradicts  the  contrary  belief  that, 
having  originated  one  or  a  few  forms,  he  caused  all  the 
others  to  spring  from  these  in  accordance  with  laws  which 
he  ordained  and  makes  operative. 

If  that  which  is  perhaps  the  most  commonly  received 
interpretation  of  the  biblical  record  of  creation  is  correct, 
then  it  is  certain  that  the  Bible,  implicitly  yet  distinctly, 
teaches  the  doctrine  of  Evolution.  According  to  this  inter- 
pretation, the  record  contains  an  account  of  the  first  and 
only  origination  of  plants  and  animals,  and  all  that  exist 
now  or  that  have  existed  from  the  beginning  are  their 
descendants.  If,  then,  we  have  the  means  of  ascertaining 
the  characteristics  of  these  ancestors  of  existing  kinds,  we 
can  learn  whether  they  were  identical  with  their  descend- 
ants or  not.  If  the  early  forms  were  the  same  as  the  present, 
then  the  hypothesis  of  Evolution  or  descent  with  modifica- 
tion is  not  true;  but  if  they  were  different,  then  it  is  true. 
Now,  not  indeed  the  very  earliest,  but  great  numbers  of  the 
earlier  forms  of  animals  and  plants  have  been  preserved  to 
the  present  day,  buried  in  the  earth,  so  that  we  can  see  for 
ourselves  what  they  were.  An  examination  of  these  remains 
makes  it  absolutely  certain  that  none  of  the  species  now 
existing  are  the  same  as  the  earlier,  but  that  these  were 
wholly  unlike  those  now  living;  and  that  there  have  been 
constant  changes  in  progress  from  the  remote  ages  of  the 
past,  the  effect  of  which  has  been  by  degrees  to  bring  the 


630 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


unlike  forms  of  a  distant  antiquity  into  likeness  with  those 
which  are  now  on  the  earth.  Hence  all  who  believe  that 
the  creation  described  in  the  Bible  was  the  origination  of 
the  ancestors  of  the  organic  forms  that  have  since  existed, 
cannot  help  believing  in  the  hypothesis  of  Evolution.  This 
is  so  obvious  that  it  is  surprising  that  it  has  been  so  gen- 
erally overlooked. 

There  seems  to  be  no  way  of  avoiding  this  conclusion, 
except  by  assuming  that  the  so-called  remains  of  animals 
and  plants  buried  in  the  earth  are  not  really  remains  of 
beings  that  were  once  alive,  but  that  God  created  them 
just  as  we  find  them.  But  this  assumption  must  be  rejected, 
because  it  is  inconsistent  with  a  belief  in  God  as  a  God 
of  truth.  It  is  impossible  to  believe  that  a  God  of  truth 
would  create  corpses  or  skeletons  or  drift-wood  or  stumps. 

If  the  interpretation  which  I  have  spoken  of  as  perhaps 
most  commonly  received  is  rejected,  then  it  may  be  thought 
that  the  Bible  speaks  only  of  the  first  origination  of  organic 
beings  millions  of  years  ago,  but  says  nothing  of  the  origin 
of  the  ancestors  of  those  now  on  the  earth ;  but  that  it  may 
be  supposed  that  when  one  creation  became  extinct,  there 
were  other  successive  immediate  independent  creations 
down  to  the  beginning  of  the  present  era.  There  may  be 
nothing  in  the  Bible  contradicting  this  supposition ;  but  cer- 
tainly there  is  nothing  there  favoring  it.  And  if  it  is 
rejected  in  favor  of  Evolution,  it  is  not  an  interpretation  of 
Scripture  that  is  rejected,  but  something  that  confessedly 
lies  outside  of  it. 

Or,  in  the  next  place,  the  interpretation  may  be  adopted 
that  the  narrative  in  the  Bible  relates  exclusively  to  the 
origination  of  existing  forms,  and  that  it  is  wholly  silent 
respecting  those  of  which  we  find  the  buried  remains.  It 
need  hardly  be  said  that,  on  this  interpretation,  as  in  the  last 
case,  there  is  nothing  in  the  silence  of  the  Scriptures  that 
either  suggests  or  forbids  belief  in  Evolution  as  regards 
all  the  creations  preceding  the  last.  For  anything  that 
appears  to  the  contrary,  the  multitudes  of  successively 
different  forms  belonging  to  series  unmentioned  in  Scripture 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


631 


may  have  sprung  from  a  common  source  in  accordance  with 
the  doctrine  of  descent  with  modification. 

When  we  reach  the  account  of  the  origin  of  man,  we  find 
it  more  detailed.  In  the  first  narrative  there  is  nothing  that 
suggests  the  mode  of  creating  any  more  than  in  the  case  of 
the  earth,  or  the  plants  and  animals.  But  in  the  second,  we 
are  told  that  "the  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life ;  and 
man  became  a  living  soul."  Here  seems  to  be  a  definite 
statement  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  belief  that  man, 
either  in  body  or  soul,  is  the  descendant  of  other  organised 
beings.  At  first  sight  the  statement,  that  "man  was  formed 
of  the  dust  of  the  ground,"  seems  to  point  out  with  unmis- 
takable clearness  the  exact  nature  of  the  material  of  which 
man's  body  was  made.  But  further  examination  does  not 
strengthen  this  view.  For  remembering  the  principles  and 
facts  already  stated,  and  seeking  to  ascertain  the  meaning 
of  "dust  of  the  ground"  by  examining  how  the  same  words 
are  employed  elsewhere  in  the  narrative,  the  sharp  definite- 
ness  which  seemed  at  first  to  be  so  plainly  visible  somewhat 
disappears.  For  example,  we  are  told  in  one  place  that  the 
waters  were  commanded  to  bring  forth  the  moving  creature 
that  hath  life,  and  fowl  that  may  fly  above  the  earth;  and 
the  command  was  obeyed.  And  yet,  in  another  place  we  are 
told  that  out  of  the  ground  the  Lord  God  formed  every 
beast  of  the  field,  and  every  fowl  of  the  air.  Now  as  both 
these  statements  are  true,  it  is  evident  that  there  can  be 
no  intention  to  describe  the  material  employed.  There  was 
some  sort  of  connexion  with  the  water,  and  some  with  the 
ground ;  but  beyond  this  nothing  is  clear.  Then  further, 
in  the  sentence  which  God  pronounced  upon  Adam,  he  says : 
"Out  of  the  ground  wast  thou  taken ;  for  dust  thou  art,  and 
unto  dust  shalt  thou  return."  And  in  the  curse  uttered 
against  the  serpent,  it  was  said :  "Dust  shalt  thou  eat  all  the 
days  of  thy  life."  Now  Adam,  to  whom  God  was  speaking, 
was  flesh  and  blood  and  bone ;  and  the  food  of  serpents  then 
as  now  consisted  of  the  same  substances,  flesh  and  blood. 
The  only  proper  conclusion  in  view  of  these  facts  seems  to 
be  that  the  narrative  does  not  intend  to  distinguish  in 


632 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


accordance  with  chemical  notions  different  kinds  of  matter, 
specifying  here  inorganic  in  different  states,  and  there 
organic,  but  merely  to  refer  in  a  general  incidental  way  to 
previously  existing  matter,  without  intending  or  attempting 
to  describe  its  exact  nature.  For  such  reasons  it  does  not 
seem  to  me  certain  that  we  have  a  definite  statement  which 
necessarily  conveys  the  first  meaning  mentioned  touching 
the  material  used  in  the  formation  of  man's  body.  If  this 
point  is  doubtful,  there  would  seem  to  be  no  ground  for 
attributing  a  different  origin  to  man's  body  from  that  which 
should  be  attributed  to  animals:  if  the  existing  animal 
species  were  immediately  created,  so  was  man ;  if  they  were 
derived  from  ancestors  unlike  themselves,  so  may  man 
have  been.  Just  so  far  as  doubt  rests  on  the  meaning  of  the 
narrative,  just  so  far  are  we  forbidden  to  say  that  either 
mode  of  creation  contradicts  the  narrative.  And  as  the 
interpretation  suggested  may  be  true,  we  are  not  at  liberty 
to  say  that  the  Scriptures  are  contradicted  by  Evolution. 

As  regards  the  soul  of  man,  which  bears  God's  image,  and 
which  differs  so  entirely  not  merely  in  degree  but  in  kind 
from  anything  in  the  animals,  I  believe  that  it  was  imme- 
diately created,  that  we  are  here  so  taught;  and  I  have  not 
found  in  science  any  reason  to  believe  otherwise.  Just  as 
there  is  no  scientific  basis  for  the  belief  that  the  doctrine 
of  derivation  or  descent  can  bridge  over  the  chasms  which 
separate  the  non-existent  from  the  existent,  and  the  inor- 
ganic from  the  organic,  so  there  is  no  such  basis  for  the 
belief  that  this  doctrine  can  bridge  over  the  chasm  which 
separates  the  mere  animal  from  the  exalted  being  which  is 
made  after  the  image  of  God.  The  mineral  differs  from  the 
animal  in  kind,  not  merely  in  degree;  so  the  animal  differs 
from  man  in  kind;  and  while  science  has  traced  numberless 
transitions  from  degree  to  degree,  it  has  utterly  failed  to 
find  any  indications  of  transition  from  kind  to  kind  in  this 
sense.  So  in  the  circumstantial  account  of  the  creation  of 
the  first  woman,  there  are  what  seem  to  me  insurmountable 
obstacles  in  the  way  of  fully  applying  the  doctrine  of 
descent. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


633 


But  it  is  not  surprising  that,  even  if  Evolution  is  gener- 
ally true,  it  should  not  be  true  of  man  in  his  whole  being. 
Man,  as  the  image  of  God,  is  infinitely  above  the  animals; 
and  in  man's  entire  history  God  has  continually  been  setting 
aside  the  ordinary  operation  of  the  laws  by  which  he  con- 
trols his  creation.  For  man's  sake,  the  course  of  the  sun  in 
the  heavens  was  stayed;  the  walls  of  Jericho  fell  down  at 
the  sound  of  the  trumpets ;  manna  ordinarily  decayed  in  one 
day,  but  resisted  decay  for  two  days  when  one  of  these  was 
the  day  of  man's  sacred  rest;  for  man's  sake  the  waters  of 
the  Red  Sea  and  of  the  River  Jordan  stood  upright  as  an 
heap ;  iron  was  made  to  swim ;  women  received  their  dead 
raised  to  life  again ;  the  mouths  of  lions  were  stopped ;  the 
violence  of  fire  was  quenched ;  water  was  turned  into  wine  ; 
without  medicine  the  blind  saw,  the  lame  walked,  the  lepers 
were  cleansed,  the  dead  were  raised;  more  than  all,  and 
above  all,  for  man's  sake  God  himself  took  on  him  our 
nature  as  the  second  Adam  by  being  born  of  a  woman, 
underwent  the  miseries  of  this  life,  the  cursed  death  of  the 
cross ;  was  buried ;  he  rose  again  on  the  third  day,  ascended 
into  heaven;  whence,  as  both  God  and  man,  he  shall  come 
to  judge  the  world  at  the  last  day.  Surely  then,  I  repeat, 
it  is  not  surprising  that,  though  man  in  his  body  so  closely 
resembles  the  animals,  yet  as  a  whole  his  origin  as  well  as 
his  history  should  be  so  different  from  theirs. 

Having  now  pointed  out  the  probable  absence  of  contra- 
diction between  the  Scripture  account  of  creation  and  the 
doctrine  of  Evolution,  except  in  the  case  of  man  so  far  as 
regards  his  soul,  but  without  having  at  all  considered  the 
probable  truth  or  falsehood  of  Evolution,  I  proceed  next,  as 
briefly  as  possible,  to  state  a  few  of  the  facts  which  seem 
to  be  sufficient  at  least  to  keep  us  from  summarily  rejecting 
the  doctrine  as  certainly  false. 

First,  as  to  the  earth,  in  connexion  with  the  other  mem- 
bers of  our  solar  system. 

Some  inquirers  into  the  past  history  of  this  system  have 
been  led  to  suppose  that  at  one  time  the  whole  of  the  matter 
now  composing  the  various  separate  bodies  may  have 
existed  in  a  nebulous  state,  forming  a  vast  sphere  with  a 


634 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


diameter  far  exceeding  that  of  the  orbit  of  Neptune,  the 
outermost  planet;  that  this  sphere  rotated  about  its  axis, 
and  that  it  was  undergoing  gradual  contraction.  If  there 
ever  was  such  a  sphere,  it  is  claimed  by  some  of  those  who 
have  most  carefully  studied  these  subjects,  that,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  laws  by  which  God  is  now  governing  his 
material  works,  just  such  a  solar  system  as  ours  would 
necessarily  have  resulted.  As  the  sphere  contracted,  the 
nebulous  matter  would  become  more  dense,  and  the  rate  of 
rotation  would  increase  and  would  thereby  increase  the  cen- 
trifugal force  so  that  at  length  a  belt  or  ring  would  be 
thrown  off  from  the  equatorial  region  of  the  sphere;  which 
belt  might  continue  to  rotate  as  an  unbroken  mass,  or,  if 
broken,  would  be  collected  by  the  laws  of  attraction  into  a 
spheroidal  body,  which  would  rotate  upon  its  own  axis  and 
would  also  continue  to  revolve  in  a  path  around  the  axis  of 
the  whole  mass — both  these  revolutions  being  in  the  same 
direction,  the  axis  of  the  new  spheroid  being  not  far  from 
parallel  with  the  general  axis,  and  the  orbit  of  revolution 
being  not  far  from  parallel  with  the  plane  of  the  general 
equator.  This  process  would  be  repeated  from  time  to  time, 
new  belts  or  spheroids  with  the  same  characteristics  being 
successively  formed.  So  from  each  of  these  spheroids,  as 
it  continued  to  contract,  similar  secondary  spheroids  might 
be  successively  formed,  each  assuming  a  shape  determined 
by  the  rate  of  rotation.  At  a  certain  stage  in  the  cooling, 
the  nebulous  matter  would  become  a  liquid  molten  mass, 
ultimately  solid.  As  the  solid  spheroid  cooled  still  more,  it 
would  still  continue  to  contract,  but  unequally  in  the  inte- 
rior and  on  the  exterior,  and  thus  the  surface  would  be  cov- 
ered with  successively  formed  wrinkles  or  ridges. 

Now,  in  every  particular,  with  very  slight  exception,  the 
constitution  of  our  solar  system  and  our  earth  is  exactly 
such  as  has  just  been  described.  It  consists  of  a  number  of 
spheroids,  each  rotating  on  its  own  axis,  and  revolving 
around  a  central  mass ;  and  around  the  several  primary 
spheroids  are  others  which  rotate  on  their  axes,  and  revolve 
around  their  primaries  as  these  do  around  the  sun — all  hav- 
ing a  form  determined  by  the  rate  of  rotation ;  the  primaries 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


635 


or  planets  all  rotate  on  axes  nearly  parallel  with  the  axis  of 
the  sun ;  the  planes  of  their  orbits  of  revolution  nearly  coin- 
cide with  the  equatorial  plane  of  the  sun;  these  revolutions 
and  rotations  are  all  in  the  same  direction ;  in  the  case  of 
Saturn,  in  addition  to  revolving  satellites  are  revolving  belts 
or  rings.  Coming  to  our  earth,  it  exhibits  the  plainest 
marks  of  having  once  been  in  a  molten  state;  the  great 
mountain  chains,  which  certainly  have  been  formed  during 
successive  periods,  are  just  such  as  would  be  formed  by  the 
wrinkling  of  the  earth's  crust  caused  by  unequal  contrac- 
tion. Hence  it  would  seem  not  unreasonable  to  conclude 
that,  if  the  nebular  hypothesis  has  not  been  proved  to  be 
certainly  true,  it  has  at  least  been  shown  to  be  probable. 
The  number  and  variety  of  coincidences  between  the  facts 
which  we  see  and  the  necessary  results  of  the  supposition  on 
which  the  nebular  hypothesis  is  founded,  are  so  very  great 
that  it  must  go  far  to  produce  the  conviction  that  that  sup- 
position can  hardly  be  wrong.  As  before  intimated,  the  cor- 
respondence is  not  perfect ;  but  the  exceptions  are  not  such 
as  to  disprove  the  hypothesis — they  are  merely  the  residual 
phenomena,  which  in  the  case  of  even  the  most  firmly  estab- 
lished principles  await  a  full  explanation. 

If  it  should  be  objected  that,  as  this  scheme  rests  on  a 
mere  supposition,  no  part  of  the  superstructure  can  be 
stronger  than  the  foundation,  and  that  therefore  it  must 
be  supposition  and  nothing  more  throughout,  I  would  say 
that  this  objection  rests  on  a  misapprehension  of  the  nature 
of  reasoning  on  such  subjects.  Let  us  examine,  by  way  of 
illustration,  the  method  by  which  the  truth  of  the  doctrine 
of  gravitation  was  established.  At  first  it  was  the  gravita- 
tion hypothesis  merely.  Newton  formed  the  supposition 
that  the  heavenly  bodies  are  drawn  towards  each  other 
by  the  same  force  which  draws  bodies  towards  each  other 
on  the  earth.  He  calculated  what  the  motions  of  the  moon 
and  the  planets  should  be  if  this  supposition  is  correct. 
After  many  efforts,  he  found  that  many  of  these  motions 
were  nearly  what  his  supposition  would  require.  Even  the 
first  observed  coincidence  was  a  step  towards  proving  the 
truth  of  his  hypothesis ;  and  as  these  coincidences  multiplied, 


636 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


his  conviction  of  its  truth  was  increased ;  until  at  length  he 
and  all  who  took  the  trouble  to  become  acquainted  with  the 
facts  of  the  case  believed  with  the  utmost  confidence  that  it 
was  absolutely  true.  But  even  when  this  conviction  was 
reached,  there  were  still  many  phenomena  which  Newton 
could  not  explain  on  his  hypothesis;  but  these  residual 
phenomena,  formidable  as  they  were,  did  not  shake  his 
confidence,  and  should  not  have  done  so.  Now,  if  New- 
ton's gravitation  hypothesis  was  entitled  to  his  confidence 
on  account  of  the  number  and  variety  of  coincidences,  not- 
withstanding the  apparently  inconsistent  facts,  ought  not 
the  nebular  hypothesis  to  be  entitled  to  similar  confidence, 
provided  there  should  be  similar  coincidences  in  number 
and  variety,  even  though  there  remain  some  apparently 
inconsistent  facts?  And  as  the  gravitation  hypothesis  rests 
upon  a  mere  supposition  in  the  same  sense  with  the  nebular 
hypothesis,  ought  the  superstructure  for  that  reason  to  be 
rejected  in  the  one  case  any  more  than  in  the  other? 

It  deserves  to  be  remarked  here  that,  after  Newton  had 
framed  his  hypothesis,  he  was  led  for  years  to  abandon  it, 
inasmuch  as  with  the  measurements  of  the  earth  on  the 
basis  of  which  he  made  his  first  calculations  the  motions  of 
the  heavenly  bodies  were  utterly  inconsistent  with  it. 

To  conclude,  then,  as  regards  the  earth,  I  would  say  in 
the  terms  of  one  definition  of  Evolution — terms  which  have 
furnished  to  witlings  so  much  amusement,  but  yet  which  so 
accurately  and  appropriately  express  the  idea  intended — 
that  I  think  it  very  probable  that  our  earth  and  solar  system 
constitute  one  case  in  which  the  homogeneous  has  been 
transformed  by  successive  differentiations  into  the  hetero- 
geneous. 

In  the  next  place,  respecting  the  origin  of  the  various 
kinds  of  animals  and  organised  forms  generally,  it  has  been 
supposed  by  some  naturalists  that  existing  forms,  instead  of 
having  been  independently  created,  have  all  been  derived  by 
descent,  with  modification,  from  a  few  forms  or  a  single  one. 
It  is  known  that  the  offspring  of  a  single  pair  differ  slightly 
from  each  other  and  from  their  parents ;  it  is  further  known 
that  such  differences  or  variations  may  be  transmitted  to 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


637 


subsequent  generations ;  and  it  is  self-evident  that  under 
changing  conditions  the  varieties  best  fitted  to  the  new  con- 
ditions would  be  most  likely  to  survive.  Now,  under  the 
operation  of  these  principles,  it  is  held  that  all  the  immense 
variety  of  existing  forms  of  plants  and  animals  may  have 
sprung  from  one  or  a  few  initial  simple  types. 

In  accordance  with  this  supposition,  the  earliest  inhabit- 
ants of  the  world  would  be  very  simple  forms.  Among 
the  varieties  produced  in  successive  generations  some  would 
be  more  complex  in  their  organisation  than  their  parents  ; 
such  complexity  being  transmitted  would  form  kinds  some- 
what higher  in  rank;  these  in  turn  would  give  rise  to  others 
still  more  complex  and  higher;  until  at  length  at  the  pres- 
ent day  the  most  complex  and  highest  would  exist.  All 
would  not  undergo  such  modifications  as  to  produce  the 
higher  forms ;  hence  there  would  be  at  all  times,  along  with 
the  highest.,  every  intermediate  stage — though  the  existing 
low  forms  would  differ  in  many  particulars  from  their  ances- 
tors, unless,  indeed,  the  conditions  under  which  they  lived 
remained  unchanged. 

Now,  in  the  statement  just  made  we  have  an  outline  of 
the  facts  made  known  to  us  by  an  examination  of  the 
animals  and  plants  which  are  buried  in  the  earth.  The  sedi- 
ment in  the  waters  all  over  the  world  sooner  or  later  sinks 
to  the  bottom  in  the  form  of  layers ;  this  sediment  contains 
remains  of  plants  and  animals  carried  down  with  it,  and  in 
various  ways  permanently  preserves  them.  Of  course  only 
a  very  small  part  of  the  plants  and  animals  could  be  thus 
preserved;  still  a  few  would  be.  If  we  could  gain  access  to 
these  layers  and  examine  their  contents,  we  would  obtain 
a  knowledge  of  the  successive  generations  of  the  past — the 
lowest  layer  being  the  oldest.  It  happens  that  a  vast  num- 
ber of  such  layers  have  been  hardened  into  rock,  and  have 
been  raised  from  the  waters  where  they  were  formed,  and 
so  broken  and  tilted  that  we  have  ready  access  to  them.  Xot 
less  than  nine-tenths  of  the  dry  land,  so  far  as  examined,  is 
composed  of  sedimentary  rocks ;  and  of  these  a  large  part 
contain  the  remains  of  plants  and  animals  which  were  living 
at  the  time  the  rocks  were  formed.    Of  course  it  is  not  to 


638 


DR.  JAMSS  WOODROW. 


be  supposed  that  a  complete  series  is  known  of  all  that  ever 
were  formed ;  still  enough  are  brought  to  view  to  lead  to  the 
belief  that  from  an  examination  of  their  contents  we  may 
obtain  a  fair  knowledge  of  the  history  of  the  succession  of 
animals  and  plants  from  an  early  period  down  to  the  pres- 
ent. We  cannot  go  back  to  the  beginning,  but  we  can  go 
a  long  way.  The  outline  thus  obtained  shows  us  that  all 
the  earlier  organic  beings  in  existence,  through  an  immense 
period,  as  proved  by  an  immense  thickness  of  layers  resting 
on  each  other,  were  of  lower  forms,  with  not  one  as  high  or 
of  as  complex  an  organisation  as  the  fish.  Then  the  fish 
appeared,  and  remained  for  a  long  time  the  highest  being  on 
earth.  Then  followed  at  long  intervals  the  amphibian,  or 
frog-like  animal,  the  reptile,  the  lowest  mammalian,  then 
gradually  the  higher  and  higher,  until  at  length  appeared 
man,  the  head  and  crown  of  creation.  The  plants  present  a 
similar  history — the  first  known  being  simple  forms,  like  the 
seaweed,  followed  as  we  pass  upwards  through  the  later 
layers,  by  forms  of  higher  and  higher  type,  until  we  reach 
the  diversity  and  complexity  of  existing  vegetation.  It  is 
seen,  too,  that  when  a  new  type  is  first  found,  it  does  not 
present  the  full  fp^ical  characters  afterwards  observed,  but 
along  with  some  of  these  also  some  of  the  characters  belong- 
ing to  other  types.  The  earliest  reptiles,  for  example,  pre- 
sent many  of  the  characters  of  the  fish,  the  earliest  birds  and 
mammals  many  of  the  characters  of  the  reptile;  and  so 
throughout  the  series.  It  is  true  there  are  many  gaps,  but 
not  more  than  might  be  expected  from  the  fact  that  the 
series  of  layers  containing  the  remains  is  incomplete.  When 
the  layers  show  that  the  circumstances  existing  during  the 
period  while  they  were  forming  remained  unchanged,  then 
the  kinds  of  animals  underwent  little  or  no  change ;  but  if 
the  layers  show  rapid  changes  in  climate,  depth  of  water, 
etc.,  then  the  species  of  animals  changed  rapidly  and  fre- 
quently. 

It  would  further  follow,  from  the  supposition  under  con- 
sideration, that,  all  animals  being  related  to  each  other  by 
descent,  they  must  resemble  each  other.  In  the  organic 
world  every  one  knows  that  likeness  suggests  relationship, 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


639 


and  that  relationship  usually  accompanies  likeness — the 
nearer  the  relationship,  the  closer  generally  is  the  likeness. 
Now,  careful  observation  makes  known  to  us  that  the  vari- 
ous animals  are  surprisingly  like  each  other.  In  the  highest 
class  of  vertebrate  animals,  and  also  in  man.  for  example, 
the  skeleton,  the  nervous  system,  the  digestive  system,  the 
circulatory  system,  are  all  constructed  on  exactly  the  same 
plan.  If  the  skull  of  a  man  is  compared  with  the  skull  of  a 
dog,  or  a  horse,  each  will  be  seen  to  be  composed  of  the 
same  bones  similarly  situated.  Where  the  number  differs, 
the  difference  will  be  seen  to  result  from  the  growing 
together  of  several  bones  in  one  case  which  were  separate  in 
the  others.  So  the  human  arm.  the  leg  of  the  quadruped,  the 
wing  of  the  bird,  the  paddle  of  the  whale,  will  be  found  to  be 
formed  on  exactly  the  same  plan.  When  the  form  of  the 
animal  is  such  as  to  render  unnecessary  any  part  belonging 
to  the  general  plan,  it  is  not  omitted  at  once,  but  is  reduced 
in  size  and  so  placed  as  not  to  be  in  the  way.  and  then  in 
other  similar  animals  by  degrees  passes  beyond  recognition. 
And  so  it  is  with  every  part.  There  are  also  the  same  kinds 
of  resemblance  between  the  lowest  animals ;  and,  further, 
between  any  section  of  the  lower  animals  and  those  which 
are  just  above  or  just  below  them  in  rank.  Thus  we  may 
arrange  all  the  forms  in  the  entire  animal  kingdom,  from 
highest  to  lowest,  according  to  their  resemblances ;  and 
while  the  highest  is  indeed  very  unlike  the  lowest — a  man 
very  unlike  a  simple  cell — yet  at  every  step  as  we  pass 
through  the  entire  series  we  find  the  resemblances  vastly 
greater  than  the  differences. 

We  thus  have  another  set  of  facts  which  plainly  would 
follow  from  descent  with  modification. 

The  existence  of  rudimentary  organs  is  still  another  fact 
which  would  follow  very  naturally  from  this  mode  of  crea- 
tion, but  which  seems  not  very  likely  to  have  occurred  if 
each  species  was  independently  created.  For  example, 
though  a  cow  has  no  upper  front  teeth,  a  calf  has  such 
teeth  some  time  before  it  is  born.  The  adult  whalebone 
whale  has  no  teeth  at  all.  but  the  young  before  birth  is  well 
supplied  with  them.     In  the  blind  worm,   a  snake-like 


640 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


animal,  there  are  rudimentary  legs  which  never  appear 
externally.  In  the  leg  of  a  bird,  the  bone  below  the  thigh- 
bone, instead  of  being  double  as  in  the  general  plan,  has 
the  shin-bone,  and  a  rudimentary  bone  welded  into  it  repre- 
senting the  small  outer  bone,  but  not  fulfilling  any  of  its 
uses.  The  blind  fish  of  the  Mammoth  Cave  have  optic 
nerves  and  rudimentary  eyes.  So  in  the  leg  of  the  horse,  of 
the  ox,  and  indeed  in  many  parts  of  the  body  of  every  kind 
of  animal,  will  be  found  rudimentary  organs,  apparently  not 
of  the  least  use  to  the  animal  itself,  but  of  great  use  to  those 
animals  which  they  closely  resemble.  All  these  facts  are 
just  such  as  the  doctrine  of  descent  with  modification  would 
lead  us  to  expect,  but  which  seem  hard  to  understand  on 
the  supposition  that  each  species  was  independently  and 
immediately  created. 

Again,  the  changes  through  which  an  animal  passes  in  its 
embryonic  state  are  just  such  as  the  doctrine  of  descent 
requires.  All  animals  begin  life  in  the  lowest  form,  and  all 
in  substantially  the  same  form.  Each  at  first  is  a  simple 
cell.  Beginning  with  this  cell  in  the  case  of  the  higher  ani- 
mals, we  find  that,  in  the  course  of  embryonic  development, 
at  successive  stages  the  general  forms  are  presented  which 
characterise  the  several  groups  in  which  animals  are  placed 
when  classified  according  to  their  resemblance  to  each  other, 
ascending  from  the  lowest  to  the  highest.  While  it  cannot 
be  said  that  the  human  embryo  is  at  one  period  an  inverte- 
brate, then  a  fish,  afterwards  a  reptile,  a  mammalian  quad- 
ruped, and  at  last  a  human  being,  yet  it  is  true  that  it  has  at 
one  period  the  invertebrate  structure,  then  successively,  in 
a  greater  or  less  number  of  particulars,  the  structure  of  the 
fish,  the  reptile,  and  the  mammalian  quadruped.  And  in 
many  of  these  particulars  the  likeness  is  strikingly  close. 

The  last  correspondence  which  I  shall  point  out  between 
the  results  of  the  doctrine  of  descent  and  actual  facts  is  that 
which  is  presented  by  the  geographical  distribution  of  ani- 
mals. In  this  wide  field  I  must  confine  myself  to  a  few 
points. 

By  examining  the  depths  of  the  channels  which  separate 
islands  from  each  other  or  from  neighboring  continents, 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


641 


the  relative  length  of  time  during  which  they  must  have  been 
without  land  communication  between  them  may  be  approxi- 
mately ascertained.  Where  the  channel  is  shallow,  they 
may  have  formed  parts  of  a  single  body  of  land  recently; 
but  where  it  is  deep,  they  must  ordinarily  have  been  sepa- 
rate for  a  long  time.  For  example,  Great  Britain  is  sepa- 
rated from  the  continent  of  Europe  by  a  very  shallow  chan- 
nel; Madagascar  is  cut  off  from  Africa  by  one  that  is  very 
deep.  In  the  East  Indies,  Borneo  is  separated  from  Java 
by  a  sea  not  three  hundred  feet  deep ;  it  is  separated 
from  Celebes,  which  is  much  nearer  than  Java,  by  a 
channel  more  than  five  thousand  feet  deep.  Now,  it 
the  theory  of  descent  with  modification  is  true,  it  should 
be  expected  that  in  the  regions  recently  separated,  the  ani- 
mals would  differ  but  slightly;  in  regions  separated  long 
ago,  the  animals  would  differ  more  widely;  and  that,  just  in 
proportion  to  the  length  of  separation.  This  is  exactly  what 
we  find  in  the  regions  mentioned.  The  animals  of  Great 
Britain  differ  little  from  those  on  the  adjacent  continent; 
while  the  animals  of  Madagascar  differ  greatly  from  those 
of  the  neighboring  coast  of  Africa.  There  are  few  kinds 
found  in  Java  which  are  not  also  found  in  Borneo ;  while 
on  the  other  hand  very  few  kinds  are  found  in  Celebes  which 
exist  in  Borneo.   So  it  is  the  world  over. 

And  this  is  not  all.  When  we  examine  the  kinds  of  ani- 
mals which  have  recently  become  extinct  in  each  country, 
we  find  that  they  correspond  exactly  with  those  which 
now  inhabit  that  country;  they  are  exactly  such  as  should 
have  preceded  the  present  according  to  the  doctrine  of 
descent.  For  example,  lions,  tigers,  and  other  flesh-eating 
animals  of  the  highest  rank,  are  found  scattered  over  the 
great  Eastern  continent.  In  Australia  the  kangaroo  and 
other  pouched  animals  like  the  opossum  abound,  but  none  of 
any  higher  rank.  In  South  America  are  found  the  sloth,  the 
armadillo,  and  other  forms  which  we  meet  with  no  where 
else  on  the  earth.  Now,  in  the  Eastern  continent  we  find 
buried  in  caves  and  the  upper  layers  of  the  earth  extinct 
kinds  of  lions,  bears,  hyenas,  and  the  like,  which  differ 
from  existing  kinds,  but  yet  closely  resemble  them.  But 


41 — v? 


642 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


we  find  nothing  like  the  kangaroo  or  other  pouched  animals, 
or  like  the  sloth  or  armadillo.  Whereas  if  we  examine 
the  extinct  buried  animals  in  Australia,  we  find  they  are 
all  pouched,  with  not  a  single  example  of  anything  of  as 
high  rank  as  the  lion  or  the  bear;  and  if  we  do  the  same 
in  South  America,  we  see  extinct  kinds  of  armadillos  and 
sloths,  but  nothing  at  all  like  the  animals  of  Asia  or  Austra- 
lia. It  is  equally  true  that  wherever  regions  of  the  world 
are  separated  by  barriers  which  prevent  the  passage  of  ani- 
mals— whether  these  barriers  are  seas,  or  mountain  ranges, 
or  climatic  zones — the  groups  of  animals  inhabiting  the 
separated  regions  differ  more  or  less  widely  from  each  other 
just  in  proportion  to  the  length  of  time  during  which  the 
barriers  have  existed.  If  the  barrier  is  such  that  it  prevents 
the  passage  of  one  kind  of  animal  and  not  another,  then  the 
groups  will  resemble  each  other  in  the  animals  whose 
passage  is  not  prevented,  and  will  differ  in  the  rest.  All  this 
is  independent  of  climate,  and  other  conditions  of  life;  two 
regions  may  have  the  same  climate,  may  be  equally  favor- 
able to  the  existence  of  a  certain  group  of  animals ;  but  if 
these  regions  are  separated  by  impassable  barriers,  the 
groups  differ  just  as  previously  stated. 

In  view  of  all  the  facts  now  presented — the  way  in  which 
animals  have  succeeded  each  other,  beginning  as  far  back  as 
we  can  go,  and  coming  down  to  the  present ;  the  series  of 
resemblances  which  connect  them  from  the  lowest  to  the 
highest,  exhibiting  such  remarkable  unity  of  plan ;  the  exist- 
ence of  rudimentary  organs;  the  geographical  distribution 
of  animals,  and  the  close  connexion  of  that  distribution  now 
and  in  the  past; — in  view  of  all  these  facts  the  doctrine  of 
descent  with  modification,  which  so  perfectly  accords  with 
them  all,  cannot  be  lightly  and  contemptuously  dismissed. 
In  the  enumeration  made,  I  have  been  careful  to  state  none 
but  well-ascertained  facts,  which  any  one  who  wishes  to 
take  the  time  can  easily  verify.  Are  not  the  coincidences 
such  as  must  almost  compel  belief  of  the  doctrine,  unless  it 
can  be  proved  to  be  contradictory  of  other  known  truth? 
For  my  part  I  cannot  but  so  regard  them  ;  and  the  more  fully 
I  become  acquainted  with  the  facts  of  which  I  have  given 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


643 


a  faint  outline,  the  more  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  it 
pleased  God,  the  Almighty  Creator,  to  create  present  and 
intermediate  past  organic  forms  not  immediately  but 
mediately,  in  accordance  with  the  general  plan  involved  in 
the  hypothesis  I  have  been  illustrating. 

Believing,  as  I  do,  that  the  Scriptures  are  almost  certainly 
silent  on  the  subject,  I  find  it  hard  to  see  how  any  one  could 
hesitate  to  prefer  the  hypothesis  of  mediate  creation  to  the 
hypothesis  of  immediate  creation.  The  latter  has  nothing  to 
offer  in  its  favor;  we  have  seen  a  little  of  what  the  former 
may  claim. 

I  cannot  take  time  to  discuss  at  length  objections  which 
have  been  urged  against  this  hypothesis,  but  may  say  that 
they  do  not  seem  to  me  of  great  weight.  It  is  sometimes 
said  that,  if  applied  to  man,  it  degrades  him  to  regard  him 
as  in  any  respect  the  descendant  of  the  beast.  We  have 
not  been  consulted  on  the  subject,  and  possibly  our  desire 
for  noble  origin  may  not  be  able  to  control  the  matter ;  but, 
however  that  may  be,  it  is  hard  to  see  how  dirt  is  nobler 
than  the  highest  organisation  which  God  had  up  to  that 
time  created  on  the  earth.  And  further,  however  it  may 
have  been  with  Adam,  we  are  perfectly  certain  that  each 
one  of  us  has  passed  through  a  state  lower  than  that  of  the 
fish,  then  successively  through  states  not  unlike  those  of  the 
tadpole,  the  reptile,  and  the  quadruped.  Hence,  whatever 
nobility  may  have  been  conferred  on  Adam  by  being  made 
of  dust  has  been  lost  to  us  by  our  passing  through  these  low 
animal  stages. 

It  has  been  objected  that  it  removes  God  to  such  a  dis- 
tance from  us  that  it  tends  to  atheism.  But  the  doctrine 
of  descent  certainly  applies  to  the  succession  of  men  from 
Adam  up  to  the  present.  Are  we  any  farther  from  God  than 
were  the  earlier  generations  of  the  antediluvians?  Have  we 
fewer  proofs  of  his  existence  and  power  than  they  had?  It 
must  be  plain  that,  if  mankind  shall  continue  to  exist  on 
the  earth  so  long,  millions  of  years  hence  the  proofs  of  God's 
almighty  creative  power  will  be  as  clear  as  they  are  to-day. 

It  has  been  also  objected  that  this  doctrine  excludes  the 
idea  of  design  in  nature.    But  if  the  development  of  an  oak 


644 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


from  an  acorn  in  accordance  with  laws  which  God  has 
ordained  and  executes,  does  not  exclude  the  idea  of  design, 
I  utterly  fail  to  see  how  the  development  of  our  complex 
world,  teeming  with  co-adaptations  of  the  most  striking 
character,  can  possibly  exclude  that  idea. 

I  have  now  presented  briefly,  but  as  fully  as  possible  in  an 
address  of  this  kind,  my  views  as  to  the  method  which 
should  be  adopted  in  considering  the  relations  between  the 
Scriptures  and  natural  science,  showing  that  all  that  should 
be  expected  is  that  it  shall  be  made  to  appear  by  interpreta- 
tions which  may  be  true  that  they  do  not  contradict  each 
other;  that  the  contents  and  aims  of  the  Scriptures  and  of 
natural  science  are  so  different  that  it  is  unreasonable  to 
look  for  agreement  or  harmony;  that  terms  are  not  and 
ought  not  to  be  used  in  the  Bible  in  a  scientific  sense,  and 
that  they  are  used  perfectly  truthfully  when  they  convey  the 
sense  intended ;  that  on  these  principles  all  alleged  contra- 
dictions of  natural  science  by  the  Bible  disappear;  that  a 
proper  definition  of  Evolution  excludes  all  reference  to  the 
origin  of  the  forces  and  laws  by  which  it  works,  and  there- 
fore that  it  does  not  and  cannot  affect  belief  in  God  or  in 
religion ;  that,  according  to  not  unreasonable  interpretations 
of  the  Bible,  it  does  not  contradict  anything  there  taught  so 
far  as  regards  the  earth,  the  lower  animals,  and  probably 
man  as  to  his  body;  that  there  are  many  good  grounds  for 
believing  that  Evolution  is  true  in  these  respects ;  and  lastly, 
that  the  reasons  urged  against  it  are  of  little  or  no  weight. 

I  would  say  in  conclusion,  that  while  the  doctrine  of  Evo- 
lution in  itself,  as  before  stated,  is  not  and  cannot  be  either 
Christian  or  anti-Christian,  religious  or  irreligious,  theistic 
or  atheistic,  yet  viewing  the  history  of  our  earth  and  its 
inhabitants,  and  of  the  whole  universe,  as  it  is  unfolded  by 
its  help,  and  then  going  outside  of  it  and  recognising  that  it 
is  God's  Ply  an  OF  creation,  instead  of  being  tempted  to  put 
away  thoughts  of  him,  as  I  contemplate  this  wondrous  series 
of  events,  caused  and  controlled  by  the  power  and  wisdom 
of  the  Lord  God  Almighty,  I  am  led  with  profounder  rever- 
ence and  admiration  to  give  glory  and  honor  to  him  that  sits 
on  the  throne,  who  liveth  for  ever  and  ever;  and  with  fuller 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


645 


heart  and  a  truer  appreciation  of  what  it  is  to  create,  to 
join  in  saying,  Thou  art  worthy,  O  Lord,  to  receive  glory 
and  honor  and  power ;  for  thou  hast  created  all  things,  and 
for  thy  pleasure  they  are  and  were  created. 


646 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Editorials. 


The  General  Assembly  and  the  Perkins  Professor. 

The  Vicksburg  General  Assembly  adopted  a  resolution  touch- 
ing the  Columbia  Theological  Seminary,  which  seems  to  us  to 
have  been  misunderstood,  but  about  which  we  have  hesitated 
to  say  anything  for  manifest  personal  reasons.  But  as  the 
misunderstanding  seems  to  prevail  widely,  and  has  been  widely 
published,  we  regard  it  as  an  obligation  which  we  should  not 
evade  to  correct  it. 

The  resolution  adopted  is  as  follows : 

''Resolved,  That  this  Assembly  commend  the  action  of  the 
Board  of  Directors  of  the  Columbia  Theological  Seminary, 
requesting  the  Perkins  Professor  of  Natural  Science  in  Con- 
nexion with  Revelation  to  lay  before  the  Church  for  its  inform- 
ation his  views  as  held  and  taught  in  that  institution  touching 
evolution,  as  it  respects  the  earth,  the  lower  animals,  and  man." 

The  action  here  commended  was  taken  in  May,  1883.  It  was 
communicated  to  the  Perkins  Professor  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Board  in  August,  but  had  been  previously  published  in  this 
journal  in  May.    It  is  as  follows: 

"On  motion,  the  following  resolution  was  adopted : 

"Whereas  this  Seminary  is  the  only  one  in  our  Southern 
Church  that  has  the  chair  of  'Natural  Science  in  Connexion 
with  Revelation,'  and 

"Whereas,  'during  the  Senior  year  the  question  of  the  Unity 
and  Antiquity  of  the  Human  Race  and  Evolution  are  fully 
examined',  and 

"Whereas,  skepticism  in  the  world  is  using  alleged  discoveries 
in  science  to  impugn  the  word  of  God ; 

"Therefore  be  it  resolved,  That  this  Board  request  Professor 
Dr.  James  Woodrow  to  give  fully  his  views,  as  taught  in  this 
institution,  upon  Evolution,  as  it  respects  the  world;  the  lower 
animals,  and  man,  in  the  October  number  of  the  Southern  Pres- 
byterian Review,  or  as  soon  thereafter  as  possible." 

Circumstances  which  it  is  not  necessary  to  mention  here  pre- 
vented a  compliance  with  this  request  at  the  time  first  specified ; 
and  the  Perkins  Professor  having  been  elected  to  deliver  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


647 


Annual  Address  before  the  Alumni  Association,  determined  to 
prepare  the  statement  of  his  views  asked  for,  use  it  as  his 
address  before  the  Alumni,  and  then  publish  it. 

He  regarded  the  request  as  a  courteous  invitation  from  the 
Board  to  publish  his  views  as  a  help  in  overcoming  the  skepti- 
cism it  had  spoken  of,  and  so  regarding  it,  he  cheerfully 
consented  to  comply  with  it  as  soon  as  was  consistent  with  duty. 
And  this  he  did.  When  he  delivered  his  address,  the  Alumni 
Association,  on  the  motion  of  a  member  of  the  Board,  unanim- 
ously tendered  him  its  thanks,  and  requested  that  the  address 
be  published. 

Soon  after  the  request  of  the  Board  reached  him,  it  was 
intimated  to  him  that  the  Board  had  taken  this  action  because 
of  its  doubts  of  the  soundness  of  his  teachings.  While  he 
could  not  believe  this,  because  he  was  aware  that  the  Board 
must  be  acquainted  with  his  views,  as  these  were  presented 
before  it  at  every  annual  examination  of  his  classes  in  their 
presence,  yet  he  made  some  inquiries ;  and  he  was  assured  most 
positively  by  every  member  of  the  Board  whom  he  consulted 
that  such  was  not  the  case,  that  he  was  right  in  the  view  he  had 
taken  of  their  action :  that  the  request  had  been  made  of  him, 
because  he  was  known  to  have  studied  the  subject  carefully, 
for  information  on  the  relation  of  theories  of  evolution  to 
revealed  truth,  in  order  to  establish  the  mind  of  the  Church 
against  the  efforts  of  skeptics  to  unsettle  faith  in  the  Scriptures 
by  means  of  such  theories. 

If  the  answer  had  been  different,  we  suppose  he  would  have 
instantly  declined  to  comply  with  the  request.  The  Board,  as 
the  immediate  guardian  of  the  Seminary,  has  the  undoubted 
right  to  inquire  into  the  teachings  of  a  Professor  and  to  require 
him  to  state  to  it  what  these  are ;  and  it  is  its  duty  to  see  to  it 
that  no  false  doctrine  shall  be  taught;  but  it  has  no  right  to 
require  him  to  publish  his  views  to  the  world  in  a  periodical 
with  which  it  has  no  connexion.  And  he  could  not  believe  that 
it  would  attempt  to  act  in  any  other  than  an  open,  above-board, 
honorable  way.  The  request  to  publish  in  the  Southern  Pres- 
byterian Review  shows  that  it  could  not  regard  the  Professor's 
views  as  "subversive  of  any  doctrine  of  the  gospel",  for  the 
editors  of  that  periodical  give  express  notice  that  they  will  not 


648 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


publish  such  views;  just  as  the  second  request  to  publish,  made 
by  the  Alumni  Association,  proves  that  they  could  not  regard 
the  doctrines  of  the  Address  as  dangerous  or  heretical.  Our 
Presbyterian  ministers  do  not  give  thanks  for  the  utterance  of 
error,  nor  do  they  desire  to  see  it  spread  abroad  under  their 
sanction. 

The  Report  which  was  prepared  and  presented  to  the  General 
Assembly  by  order  of  the  Board,  (but  which  we  believe  the 
Board  did  not  see,)  in  giving  an  account  of  the  year's  work, 
stated  that  this  request  had  been  made,  and  what  followed. 
Nothing  has  been  published  as  to  any  other  statements  that  may 
have  been  made  before  the  Committee  on  Theological  Semi- 
naries; but  when  that  committee  reported,  their  report  con- 
tained the  following  resolution : 

"Resolved,  That  this  Assembly  highly  commends  the  dili- 
gence and  fidelity  of  the  Board  of  Directors  of  Columbia 
Theological  Seminary,  and  especially  the  efforts  of  the  Board 
to  have  the  Church  know  the  views  of  its  Professors  on  those 
points  that  are  vital  to  our  holy  religion,  in  order  that  all  may 
be  sure  that  no  insidious  errors  are  taught  in  their  institution." 

This  was  objected  to  as  casting  suspicion  on  some  of  the 
Professors,  or  at  least  liable  to  be  so  understood,  and  it  was 
recommitted.  Subsequently  the  resolution  which  was  quoted 
in  the  beginning  of  this  article  was  adopted  in  its  stead. 

As  to  these  resolutions  the  following  remarks  have  been 
made : 

The  New  Orleans  Picayune  says : 

"The  Rev.  Dr.  Dobbs  'made  an  interesting  report  on  the 
Theological  Seminaries,  commending  the  diligence  of  the 
Directors  of  the  Columbia,  S.  C,  Seminary  and  the  special 
efforts  of  the  Board  to  suppress  error.  This  refers  to  the 
views  of  one  of  the  Professors  on  the  theory  of  evolution." 
The  Texas  Presbyterian  and  the  St.  Louis  Presbyterian  say : 
"The  report  of  the  Committee  on  Theological  Seminaries  was 
taken  up,  amended  by  substituting  for  the  general  terms  in 
which  Directors  of  Columbia  Seminary  were  commended  for 
requiring  of  Professors  to  publish  their  views  on  certain  sub- 
jects, in  order  to  avoid  the  inculcation  of  insidious  error,  a  more 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


649 


specific  statement,  showing  that  it  referred  to  the  Perkins 
Professor  and  to  the  subject  of  evolution,  and  adopted."'' 

From  these  and  like  remarks,  and  many  other  facts,  it  is 
evident  that  the  Assembly  has  by  many  been  understood  as 
condemning  or  at  least  expressing  doubt  respecting  the  views 
held  and  taught  by  the  Professor  named. 

Xow,  it  seems  to  us  that  this  must  be  an  error. 

Xo  action  having  been  taken  as  to  the  first  resolution,  we  say 
nothing  respecting  it.  And  the  resolution  which  the  Assembly 
adopted,  commending  the  Board's  action,  of  course  depends  for 
its  character  on  the  nature  of  that  action.  What  that  was  we 
have  shown  above.  It  did  not  cast  the  faintest  shadow  of 
suspicion  on  the  Professor,  if  the  truthful  Christian  gentlemen 
who  voted  for  it  are  to  be  believed.  Therefore  the  Assembly, 
in  commending  it.  cast  no  such  shadow. 

But  even  if  this  conclusion  was  not  so  clear  as  it  is  for  these 
reasons,  it  would  be  entirely  so  in  view  of  the  character  of  the 
General  Assembly  itself.  That  Assembly,  like  all  our  Assem- 
blies, was  made  up  of  men  who  love  God  and  hate  evil ;  men 
who  are  honorable,  fair-minded,  just;  Christian  gentlemen,  who 
cannot  be  suspected  of  wantonly  and  wickedly  committing  in 
the  name  of  our  Lord  a  great  and  cruel  wrong — to  do  a  deed 
of  which  the  most  unjust  of  heathen  judges  would  have  been 
ashamed.  It  is  incredible  that  such  an  Assembly  should  have 
been  guilty  of  that  with  which  it  has  been  charged.  Sitting  as 
members  of  a  court  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  they  have  been 
charged  with  the  intention  of  condemning  as  guilty  of  teaching 
false  doctrine,  and  thus,  as  far  as  in  them  lay,  blasting  the 
reputation  of  one  of  the  teachers  in  the  Church — all  without 
a  hearing  and  in  his  absence — he  a  thousand  miles  away  in  total 
ignorance  that  any  charges  were  pending  against  him.  The 
thought  is  monstrous ;  and  we  cannot  believe  it.  Doth  our 
law  judge  any  man  before  it  hear  him.  and  know  what  he 
doeth  ?  It  was  not  the  manner  of  even  the  heathen  Romans,  as 
one  of  them  nobly  declared,  to  deliver  any  man  to  die,  before 
that  he  which  is  accused  have  the  accusers  face  to  face,  and 
have  license  to  answer  for  himself  concerning  the  crime  laid 
against  him.  And  no  body  of  the  most  cruel  and  blood-thirsty 
Papal  inquisitors  ever  tortured  and  murdered  their  victims 


650 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


without  giving  them  at  least  the  show  of  a  trial.  To  say  that  a 
Presbyterian  General  Assembly  has  attempted  to  commit  an 
atrocious  wrong  which  even  these  would  scorn,  must  be  a 
grievous  mistake. 

If  it  shall  hereafter,  say,  when  the  Perkins  Professor's 
Address  on  Evolution  shall  be  published — if  it  shall  then  appear 
that  his  views  are  inconsistent  with  the  Sacred  Scriptures  and 
the  Confession  of  Faith,  it  will  be  the  duty  of  those  who  so 
believe  to  formulate  charges  against  him  and  present  them  to 
those  who  have  authority  as  the  Church's  representatives  in 
the  matter — first,  the  Board  of  Directors,  and  then  the  Synods, 
which  control  the  Seminary.  No  one  who  believes  these  views 
to  be  false  or  heretical,  when  ascertained,  will  be  guiltless  who 
fails  so  to  act.  But  such  action  will  be  taken  openly  in  the 
fear  of  the  Lord  and  prompted  by  zeal  for  the  purity  of  his 
Church.  No  Presbyterian  tribunal  will  listen  to  whisperers, 
backbiters,  slanderers,  who  go  about  in  the  dark  bringing  accu- 
sations which  they  cannot  prove. 

We  have  the  best  reason  to  know  that  the  Perkins  Professor 
regards  his  teachings  on  the  subject  of  Evolution  as  never  so 
remotely  contradictory  of  any  truth  in  God's  word,  in  the 
accuracy  of  every  syllable  of  which  he  believes  with  all  his 
heart.  But  if  the  Church  shall  think  otherwise,  and  shall  so 
say,  after  full  examination,  then  we  are  sure  he  will  instantly 
cease  to  teach  in  her  name.  But  he  will  not  and  cannot  believe 
that  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  has  been  guilty  of  the 
terrible  wickedness  of  condemning  him  or  his  teachings 
unheard. — June  19,  1884. 


HonorabIvK  Correction. 

Three  weeks  ago,  in  view  of  statements  which  had  appeared 
in  several  journals,  we  gave  an  account  of  the  request  made  by 
the  Board  of  Directors  that  the  Perkins  Professor  publish  his 
views  on  Evolution,  and  showed  that  the  Board  could  not  have 
been  actuated  by  suspicion  of  these  views  in  making  the  request, 
or  the  General  Assembly  in  approving  it.  It  gives  us  great 
pleasure  to  state  that  the  journals  there  named,  the  St.  Louis 
Presbyterian  and  the  Texas  Presbyterian  and  the  New  Orleans 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


651 


Picayune,  have  very  promptly  and  honorably  corrected  the 
impressions  which  their  previous  statements  had  made. 
Indeed,  the  Picayune  had  done  so  before  the  adjournment  of 
the  Assembly,  but  we  did  not  see  its  correction  until  two  weeks 
ago.    It  said  May  24 : 

"On  the  report  of  the  Theological  Seminaries  the  reporter 
wishes  to  correct  two  errors :  First,  Dr.  Lefevre  was  chairman, 
and  not  Rev.  C.  H.  Dobbs ;  second,  There  was  no  charge  of 
heresy  made  against  the  learned  Professor  of  the  Perkins  Pro- 
fessorship, as  represented." 

We  have  also  received  numerous  letters  from  members  of  the 
Board  and  from  members  of  the  Assembly,  stating  that  the 
opinions  we  had  expressed  were  exactly  correct.  For  the 
reasons  we  gave  three  weeks  ago,  it  could  not  have  been  other- 
wise. It  is  true,  sacred  history  tells  us  of  Joab  and  Amasa ;  but 
we  can  never  believe  that  at  the  moment  when  the  Board  was 
publicly  asserting  its  confidence  in  the  Professor  in  May,  1883, 
it  was  asserting  a  confidence  it  did  not  feel.  Still  it  is  gratify- 
ing under  the  circumstances  to  have  the  direct  statements  we 
have  received  confirming  our  opinion. — July  io. 


Discussion  of  Evolution. 

The  article  on  Evolution  published  in  the  July  number  of  the 
Southern  Presbyterian  Review  has  begun  to  elicit  remark  and 
discussion,  as  for  various  reasons  was  to  be  expected.  The 
questions  involved  are  important ;  and  we  would  be  glad  to  see 
them  carefully  and  thoroughly  examined ;  if  the  positions  main- 
tained in  the  article  are  not  sound,  we  earnestly  hope  this  may 
be  made  to  appear,  and  that  the  truth  may  be  reached  and 
firmly  established. 

Relative  to  the  discussion,  we  may  be  permitted  to  suggest 
that  those  who  criticise  and  oppose  should  in  all  fairness  heed 
the  request  which  the  writer  may  adopt  from  the  distinguished 
Hengstenberg :  "As  I  have  used  arguments,  I  will  ask  of  those 
who  do  not  agree  with  me  to  answer  me  by  arguments."  No 
good  can  be  done  by  sneers  or  by  attempts  at  wit  or  ridicule. 
Still  less  can  any  progress  be  made  towards  the  truth  by  false- 
hood or  misrepresentation.    We  might  further  be  allowed  to 


652 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


suggest  that  at  least  some  knowledge  of  the  subject  is  requisite 
to  those  who  engage  in  the  discussion.  We  know  it  has  been 
said  that  the  best  way  to  write  a  slashing  review  of  a  book  is  to 
write  the  review  before  reading  the  book,  inasmuch  as  the 
reading  might  prejudice  the  writer  in  its  favor.  But  we  hope 
that  this  course  will  not  be  pursued  in  this  case ;  but  that  those 
who  condemn  the  positions  taken  in  the  article  will  not  only 
first  read  it,  but  will  also  base  their  views  on  some  acquaintance 
with  the  subjects  involved. 

We  suppose  the  chief  interest  in  the  matter  will  cluster 
around  the  question :  Does  the  doctrine  of  evolution,  as  defined, 
contradict  the  Bible?  If  it  does,  then  all  who  believe  the  Bible 
to  be  God's  word  must  reject  the  doctrine.  If  it  does  not  then 
it  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence  to  the  believer  in  the  Bible  as 
such,  whether  the  doctrine  is  true  or  false.  The  discussion 
then  becomes  one  purely  scientific,  in  which  we  are  interested 
just  as  we  are  in  the  proper  classification  of  animals,  in  ques- 
tions between  the  new  and  the  old  chemistry,  the  true  nature 
of  light,  and  the  like. 

In  last  week's  St.  Louis  Presbyterian  there  is  an  eminently 
fair  and  clear  outline  of  the  article.  Just  at  the  close  there  is 
a  very  slight  misapprehension  of  the  writer's  meaning  on  a 
single  point,  but  it  is  not  such  as  to  mar  the  general  accuracy  of 
the  outline  in  every  important  particular. 

The  Central  Presbyterian  says  that  it  dissents  from  the  views 
expressed  both  on  scientific  and  scriptural  grounds,  and 
promises  hereafter  to  give  these  grounds.  It  then  quotes  the 
last  two  paragraphs  of  the  article  in  which  the  writer  sums  up 
his  views. 

We  do  not  at  present  intend  to  take  part  in  the  discussion ; 
but  we  cannot  refrain  from  expressing  our  regret  that  the  Cen- 
tral Presbyterian  has  allowed  itself  to  use  the  language  with 
which  it  closes  its  article.  It  says  :  "We  should  have  been  glad 
also  to  have  had  a  more  explicit  declaration  of  the  sense  in 
which  Dr.  Woodrow  accepts  the  Mosaic  account  of  creation, 
inasmuch  as  the  language  he  uses  on  this  point  leaves  the 
impression  that  he  regards  it  as  little  more  than  a  Hebrew 
legend." 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


653 


Now,  in  his  article,  Professor  Woodrow  says,  not  merely  as 
to  the  Mosaic  account  of  creation,  but  as  to  every  word  and 
syllable  in  it  from  beginning  to  end :  "I  have  found  nothing  in 
my  study  of  the  Holy  Bible  and  of  natural  science  that  shakes 
my  firm  belief  in  the  divine  inspiration  of  every  word  of  that 
Bible,  and  in  the  consequent  absolute  truth,  the  absolute  iner- 
rancy, of  every  expression  which  it  contains,  from  beginning 
to  end." 

An  inaccuracy  of  this  kind  does  not  augur  well  for  the  value 
and  trustworthiness  of  the  future  discussion  of  the  subject  by 
the  Central  Presbyterian.  We  trust  that  that  journal  will  do 
itself  the  credit  of  hastening  to  remove  from  its  pages  such  a 
blot.  As  to  the  truth  of  the  charge,  we  leave  our  readers  to 
judge  for  themselves. — July  iy. 


Evolution. 

A  number  of  objections  to  the  doctrines  set  forth,  or  sup- 
posed to  be  set  forth,  in  Professor  Woodrow's  Address  on 
Evolution,  have  been  published  in  various  journals  during  the 
last  few  weeks.  Still  others  may  yet  be  published.  Many  of 
the  doctrines  objected  to  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  Address, 
either  explicitly  or  implicitly;  and  some  of  the  objections  per- 
haps hardly  need  any  answer.  Instead  of  replying  in  detail,  it 
will  probably  be  better  to  wait  and  examine  together  all  the 
objections  that  may  deserve  attention. — July  24.. 


The  Bible  and  Natural  Science. 

At  the  request  of  a  number  of  friends,  it  has  been  decided  to 
republished  in  these  columns  the  Address  on  Evolution  deliv- 
ered last  May  before  the  Alumni  Association  of  Columbia 
Theological  Seminary. 

In  the  first  part,  which  is  published  to-day,  fundamental 
principles  are  set  forth,  in  accordance  with  which  the  subse- 
quent discussion  is  conducted.  The  chief  of  these  are  that  the 
Bible  does  not  teach  natural  science,  and  that  the  true  relation 
between  the  Bible  and  science  is  non-contradiction. 

It  has  been  supposed  by  many  persons  in  all  ages  of  the 
Church  that  the  Bible  does  teach  natural  science  both  directly 


654 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


and  indirectly,,  and  that  those  who  do  not  believe  the  science 
which  is  there  supposed  to  be  found  are  infidels.  It  was  at  one 
time  maintained  that  no  land  inhabited  by  man  could  ever  be 
discovered  which  had  not  been  visited  by  Christian  preachers 
within  thirty  or  forty  years  after  the  crucifixion  of  our  Saviour, 
for  about  that  time  Paul  had  written  that  the  gospel  had  then 
been  "preached  to  every  creature  which  is  under  heaven".  If 
any  people  should  be  discovered  whose  ancestors  had  not  heard 
the  gospel  at  that  time,  the  Bible  would  be  proved  to  be  untrue ; 
but  this  was  impossible,  therefore  there  were  no  such  lands 
Now,  what  effect  would  the  discovery  of  the  American  Indians 
have  upon  those  who  believed  the  Bible  to  teach  what  has  been 
stated  above?  They  must  reject  it  as  false.  But  we  need 
j  hardly  stop  to  show  that  the  falseness  was  not  in  the  Bible,  but 
in  the  meaning  which  had  been  attributed  to  the  Bible. 

So,  in  many  other  cases,  one  or  two  of  which  are  referred  to 
in  the  Address,  the  Bible  was  supposed  to  be  teaching  science ; 
then  came  the  discovery  of  truth  entirely  inconsistent  with  what 
was  called  Biblical  science ;  then  came  as  an  inevitable  result  a 
fearful  increase  of  the  number  of  infidels.  Men  generally  must 
take  it  for  granted  that  the  teachers  of  the  Bible  know  what  it 
means ;  and  when  these  insist  that  it  means  what  has  been 
found  to  be  untrue,  all  who  know  the  truth  must  be  driven  into 
the  ranks  of  infidelity,  just  so  far  as  they  believe  these  teachers. 

During  the  past  centuries  the  knowledge  of  the  works  of  God 
has  greatly  increased,  and  during  the  present  century  is  increas- 
ing perhaps  more  rapidly  than  ever.  At  every  step  forward  in 
this  progress  the  same  sad  scene  has  been  witnessed ;  the  knowl- 
edge gained  has  been  denounced  as  not  in  harmony  with  Biblical 
science ;  and  all  who  have  believed  the  denunciation  have  been 
thereby  driven  to  reject  the  Bible  with  all  its  blessed  tidings. 
If  this  rejection  was  merely  like  a  refusal  to  accept  a  scientific 
theory,  it  would  be  a  small  matter ;  but  the  terrible  fact  is  that 
it  involves  the  loss  of  the  soul — the  eternal  death  of  the 
rejector.  But  on  whom  does  the  responsibility  for  the  loss 
rest?  God  told  Ezekiel  that  he  would  require  the  blood  of  the 
lost  at  the  hand  of  the  watchman  who  gave  not  warning;  how 
must  it  be  in  the  case  of  the  watchman  who  sounds  as  a  warn- 
ing that  which  leads  to  death  ? 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


655 


Multitudes  of  the  most  thoughtful  of  men  in  all  Christian 
lands  have  been  driven  into  infidelity  in  this  way.  Is  it  desir- 
able that  this  process  should  continue?  Shall  nothing  be 
learned  from  the  dreary  disastrous  history  of  die  past?  It  has 
been  shown  so  very  often  in  the  past  that  the  Bible  was  not 
teaching  science  where  it  had  been  supposed  to  be  doing  so  that 
a  presumption  in  the  same  direction  would  seem  to  be  raised 
even  in  cases  where  we  cannot  yet  see  the  whole  truth.  Is  not 
this  presumption  so  strong  that  we  ought  to  act  on  it,  unless  in 
any  case  the  contrary  can  be  made  very  clearly  to  appear? 
Shall  we  persist  in  driving  truth-loving  men  from  the  Saviour 
by  our  doubtful  interpretations  of  obscure  expressions  in  the 
word  of  God? — July  31. 


What  Does  the  Bible  Teach  ? 

In  the  part  of  the  Address  on  Evolution  published  last  week, 
it  was  shown  that  in  cases  of  apparent  disagreement  between 
the  Bible  and  natural  science,  we  should  be  satisfied  when  we 
have  proved  that  the  two  do  not  really  contradict  each  other. 

In  the  part  published  to-day,  Evolution  is  denned ;  and  then 
the  questions  are  considered,  Is  Evolution  as  thus  defined  con- 
sistent with  belief  in  God?  If  so,  how  far  is  it  consistent  with 
belief  in  the  Bible? 

These  questions  are  discussed  without  reference  to  the 
probable  truth  or  falsehood  of  Evolution.  All  that  is  attempted 
is  to  learn  what  the  Bible  teaches  concerning  the  matter.  The 
ground  taken  in  the  whole  discussion  is  that  whatever  militates 
against  the  fullest  and  heartiest  belief  in  God  or  in  his  inspired 
word  is  thereby  shown  to  be  false ;  for  we  know  that  he  exists 
and  is  the  Creator  and  Ruler  of  the  universe,  and  we  know 
that  the  Bible  is  his  word,  and  therefore  absolutely  true. 
Hence,  whenever  we  find  anything  inconsistent  with  belief  in 
God  or  the  Bible,  we  know  by  that  fact  alone,  without  further  j 
examination,  that  it  is  not  true,  and  therefore  not  worth  consid- 
ering. But,  it  need  hardly  be  added,  we  should  be  very  sure 
that  there  is  inconsistency  before  giving  up  our  inquiries. 

The  term  Evolution  has  been  used  in  several  widely  different 
senses,  and  therefore  it  is  very  important  to  know  exactly  what 
meaning  is  attached  to  it  in  any  particular  case. 


656 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


It  has  been  said  that  "Evolution  includes  all  theories  respect- 
ing the  origin  and  order  of  the  world  which  regard  the  higher 
and  more  complex  forms  of  existence  as  following  and  depend- 
ing on  the  lower  and  simpler  forms  .  .  .  and  which  assume 
the  cause  of  this  process  to  be  immanent  in  the  world  itself  that 
is  thus  transformed."  So  it  has  been  described  as  a  "long  but 
uninterrupted  series  of  developments  effected  without  inter- 
vention of  any  but  what  are  termed  secondary  causes!'  If  this 
is  Evolution,  every  believer  in  the  Bible  must  instantly  reject  it 
as  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  teachings  of  the  sacred  word. 
Such  definitions  must  also  be  rejected,  because  they  are  unscien- 
tific, as  is  shown  in  the  Address.  It  is  not  surprising  that 
Christians  should  look  upon  Evolution  with  horror  when  they 
regard  it  as  a  doctrine  which  denies  the  existence  of  God,  or  at 
least  shuts  him  out  from  the  government  of  his  universe,  and 
which  denies  the  plainest  teachings  of  the  Bible. 

But,  as  a  doctrine  of  natural  science,  Evolution  is  merely 
descriptive  of  a  process  or  method,  and  nothing  more;  and  to 
the  believer  in  God,  the  question,  How  far  is  Evolution  true? 
is  equivalent  to  this,  How  far  did  God  adopt  this  plan  in  bring- 
ing his  universe  into  its  present  condition?  With  regard  to 
immediate  creation,  it  would  be  absurd  to  inquire  how  God 
created ;  we  have  no  means  of  learning  the  methods  of  immedi- 
ate creation;  indeed,  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  we  can  ever 
come  to  know  anything  on  the  subject.  We  must  be  content 
with  a  knowledge  of  the  fact,  just  as  we  are  in  the  case  of 
miracles.  How  was  the  water  made  into  wine  at  Cana?  How 
was  the  iron  made  to  swim  by  Elisha?  How  did  Christ  rise 
from  the  dead?  We  know  that  these  things  occurred;  but  we 
know  nothing,  and  we  can  know  nothing,  of  the  methods.  So 
it  is  in  all  cases  of  creation  when  we  mean  by  that  word 
immediate  creation,  as  we  so  commonly  do.  But  in  cases  of 
mediate  creation,  as  in  the  case  of  a  tree  now  living,  it  is  possi- 
ble to  learn  at  least  something  of  the  media — of  the  process  by 
which  God  has  (thus  created. 

It  thus  appears  that  Evolutionists  differ  very  widely  from 
each  other ;  some  believing  in  the  process  as  God's  plan  of 
working;  others  believing  in  the  process  without  reference  to 
the  cause;  others  still  believing  in  the  process  as  caused  by 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


657 


something  immanent  in  the  world  itself,  and  as  an  uninter- 
rupted series  effected  without  intervention  of  any  but  what  are 
termed  secondary  causes.  Not  infrequently  the  sentiments  and 
beliefs  of  this  last  class  are  attributed  to  the  first,  who  abhor 
such  views.  Thus  to  attribute  atheism  or  materialism  to  a 
true  believer  in  God  and  his  word  is  shockingly  wicked,  when 
done  knowingly ;  how  far  this  wickedness  is  lessened  by  ignor- 
ance it  is  not  easy  to  decide. 

After  defining  Evolution,  the  fact  that  under  this  definition 
it  cannot  affect  our  belief  in  God  is  set  forth ;  and  then  the  next 
question  stated  above  is  considered.  Those  who  are  satisfied 
with  the  apparent  meaning  of  an  isolated  sentence  would  find  it 
easy  to  answer  this  question,  and  to  conclude  at  once  that  the 
doctrine  of  Evolution  is  throughout  inconsistent  with  biblical 
teachings.  But  mistakes  so  often  made  in  the  past  respecting 
similar  points  ought  surely  to  inspire  us  with  caution.  Numer- 
ous instances  might  be  given  in  which  passages  seemingly  as 
plain  have  been  misunderstood,  as  all  now  confess ;  hence  the 
necessity  of  the  utmost  care.  Sometimes  a  single  text  may 
establish  a  doctrine ;  but  very  often  the  true  and  full  meaning 
of  Scripture  can  be  ascertained,  if  at  all,  only  by  laborious 
research  and  comparison : — "when  there  is  a  question  about  the 
true  and  full  sense  of  any  Scripture,  it  may  be  searched  and 
known  by  other  places  that  speak  more  clearly."  (Confession 
of  Faith,  Ch.  I,  Sect.  IX.)  Happily  while  "all  things  are  not 
alike  plain  in  themselves,  nor  alike  clear  unto  all,  yet  those 
things  which  are  necessary  to  be  known,  believed,  and  observed, 
for  salvation,  are  so  clearly  propounded  .  .  .  that  not  only 
the  learned,  but  the  unlearned  .  .  .  may  attain  unto  a  suffi- 
cient understanding  of  them."  (Confession  of  Faith,  Ch.  L, 
Sect.  VII.)  That  God  is  Creator  no  doubt  falls  in  this  cate- 
gory, and  is  made  known  with  the  utmost  clearness;  but  few 
would  maintain  that  the  same  is  true  as  to  all  the  details  of  his 
creative  work;  and  therefore  we  are  not  entitled  to  look  for 
equal  clearness  on  these  points. 

The  danger  of  resting  an  interpretation  on  a  single  clause 
may  readily  be  seen  from  a  few  examples.  We  firmly  believe 
in  the  doctrine  of  the  perseverance  of  the  saints;  yet  the 
Arminian  points  triumphantly  to  God's  utterance  through  Paul : 


42— w 


658 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


"Ye  are  fallen  from  grace."  We  do  not  believe  that  the  bread 
in  the  Lord's  Supper  is  the  Lord's  body,  but  only  that  it  repre- 
sents that  body;  yet  the  Lutheran  consubstantiationist  and  the 
Roman  Catholic  transubstantiationist  prove  the  contrary,  as 
they  think,  by  repeating  the  Lord's  own  words,  "This  is  my 
body."  We  say  God  is  omnipresent  and  omniscient;  yet  he 
says  of  himself:  "I  will  go  down  now  and  see  whether  they 
have  done  altogether  according  to  the  cry  of  it,  which  is  come 
unto  me;  and  if  not,  I  will  know."  But  why  multiply  similar 
instances?  The  conclusion  is,  not  that  we  can  never  ascertain 
the  meaning  of  God's  word,  but  that  it  is  by  no  means  enough 
to  establish  a  particular  doctrine  that  we  are  able  to  quote  a 
text  that  seems  to  teach  it. 

The  results  reached  in  the  Address  are  ithat  the  Scriptures 
do  not  certainly  teach  whether  God  created  the  earth — that  is, 
brought  it  into  its  present  condition — mediately  or  immediately ; 
or  whether  he  created  existing  organic  forms  mediately  or 
immediately ;  but  that  in  regard  to  man's  body,  there  is  consid- 
erable doubt.  The  view  is  preferred,  however,  though 
hesitatingly,  that  the  words  which  seem  to  teach  how  man's 
body  was  formed  do  not  really  so  teach. 

It  is  fully  pointed  out  that  man  forms  an  exception  in  God's 
creation  in  many  ways.  It  is  shown  that  one  human  body — 
Eve's — was  certainly  not  formed  by  Evolution,  and  also  that 
man's  soul  was  immediately  God-given.  It  would  not,  there- 
fore, be  surprising  to  find  that  in  every  respect  man's  creation 
was  exceptional.  The  difficulty  in  deciding  the  question  is  in 
the  words — "dust  of  the  ground".  Do  these  necessarily  mean 
what  we  ordinarily  understand  by  dust,  namely,  inorganic 
matter  reduced  to  powder?  If  so,  the  question  is  settled — 
evolution  does  not  apply  to  man,  whether  it  applies  elsewhere 
or  not.  Reasons  are  suggested  why  we  may  suppose  that  it  is 
not  intended  to  describe  the  nature  of  the  substance  employed. 
The  more  the  expressions  are  examined,  the  harder  it  seems 
to  be  to  think  that  we  have  here  a  scientific  statement  settling 
the  point  in  question.  As  indicated,  the  "dust"  addressed  in 
"Dust  thou  art"  was  flesh  and  blood  and  bone.  And  the  "dust" 
to  which  we  return  is  chiefly  water,  and  carbonic  acid  and  nitro- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


659 


gen  gases,  with  a  little  phosphate  of  lime.  Which  of  these  was 
the  dust  of  the  ground  at  first  used? 

It  has  strangely  been  imagined  that  if  man's  body  had  been 
derived  by  transformation  from  an  animal,  the  doctrines  of  the 
federal  headship  of  Adam,  the  descent  of  all  men  from  Adam, 
original  sin,  etc..  must  all  be  abandoned.  If  this  were  true, 
then  belief  in  such  derivation  must  be  rejected;  for  these 
doctrines  are  undoubtedly  taught  in  the  Bible ;  and,  as  has  been 
said  above,  nothing  contrary  to  the  Bible  can  be  true.  But  how 
can  it  make  any  difference  as  to  Adam's  federal  headship,  etc., 
whether  God  formed  his  body  from  inorganic  dust  or  from  a 
highly  organised  animal?  It  is  not  even  remotely  suggested 
that  God  changed  races  of  animals  into  men ;  no  amount  of 
ingenuity  could  extort  such  an  idea  from  any  part  of  the 
Address.  It  might  as  well  be  said  that  if  God  formed  man's 
body  from  inorganic  dust,  he  must  have  formed  a  great  many 
men  at  once,  for  there  was  doubtless  a  great  deal  of  dust. 
The  question,  What  became  of  the  rest  of  the  animals  belonging 
to  the  same  species  with  that  used  in  the  formation  of  man? 
would  be  sufficiently  answered  by  asking,  What  became  of  the 
rest  of  the  dust,  part  only  of  which  was  used?  The  Bible 
teaches,  as  all  admit,  that  God  at  first  created  one  man,  begin- 
ning with  the  body ;  on  examination  we  see  that  this  body 
agrees  in  every  anatomical  and  physiological  characteristic  with 
that  of  other  mammalia  of  high  rank ;  God  then  went  on  to 
complete  his  work  by  placing  his  own  image  in  this  body  as  its 
dwelling  place.  Is  it  asked,  How  and  at  what  stage  was  this 
done?  We  reply,  whatever  our  belief  as  to  the  preexisting 
material  used  in  the  formation  of  the  body,  we  know  not :  such 
knowledge  is  too  high  for  us ;  we  cannot  attain  unto  it.  But 
observe :  the  believer  in  the  inorganic  dust  origin  and  the 
believer  in  the  organic  origin  must  both  make  this  same  con- 
fession. 

The  practical  conclusion  from  all  this  is,  that  so  far  as  the 
Bible  teaches  nothing  that  contradicts  Evolution,  it  makes  no 
difference,  as  regards  our  character  as  Christian  believers, 
wmether  we  believe  in  Evolution  or  not.  If  the  Bible  is  silent 
as  to  God's  plan  of  creation,  and  in  any  given  case  does  not  tell 
us  it  was  immediate,  in  that  case  we  may  believe  that  it  may 


660 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


have  been  mediate,  without  doubting  God's  word.  In  short, 
what  has  come  by  successive  steps  to  be  recognised  by  the 
Church  as  true  in  the  case  of  geography,  of  astronomy,  of 
geology,  not  to  speak  of  many  other  subjects,  should  be  recog- 
nised by  it  as  equally  true  in  the  case  of  Evolution,  unless, 
indeed,  it  is  very  clear  that  the  Scriptures  do  really  contradict 
it.  Many  believe  that  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures  as  to  the 
form  of  the  earth,  its  motion  and  that  of  the  heavenly  bodies, 
the  age  of  the  earth,  etc.,  are  much  plainer  than  as  to  Evolution. 
May  we  not  learn  a  lesson  here  from  the  past? 

Now,  suppose  the  views  here  presented  are  true,  then  how 
terrible  a  crime  against  the  souls  of  their  fellow-men  it  will  be 
for  teachers  in  the  Church,  preachers  of  the  gospel,  to  declare 
in  God's  name  that  their  hearers  cannot  believe  in  any  aspect 
of  Evolution  without  rejecting  the  Bible!  Would  it  not  be 
well  for  those  who  thus  teach  fully  to  assure  themselves  that 
they  are  not  following  the  sad  examples  with  which  the  history 
of  the  Church  superabounds  ? — Aug.  y. 


How  Far  is  Evolution  True? 

In  the  part  of  the  Address  on  Evolution  published  last  week, 
the  question  was  examined,  Do  the  Scriptures  contradict  Evolu- 
tion as  defined  ?  The  answer  given  was  that,  while  the  Script- 
ures teach  with  the  utmost  clearness  that  God  created  all 
things  and  constantly  rules  over  all,  they  do  not  teach  in  detail 
the  methods  according  to  which  he  proceeded,  in  bringing  the 
earth  into  its  present  condition,  in  creating  the  successive 
species  of  plants  and  animals,  and,  perhaps,  in  forming  the 
body  of  Adam. 

Here,  so  far  as  the  questions  involved  concern  the  Church,  or 
have  any  relation  to  the  word  of  God,  the  discussion  might  end. 
The  Church  as  such  is  not  interested  in  scientific  questions.  It 
makes  no  difference  to  the  Church  whether  the  theory  of  gravi- 
tation is  true  or  not ;  whether  Kepler's  laws  are  true  or  false  ; 
how  many  asteroids  there  are,  and  how  they  came  to  be  as  they 
are ;  whether  the  interior  of  the  earth  is  liquid  or  solid ;  how 
granite  was  formed ;  which  is  to  be  believed — the  old  chemistry 
or  the  new,  or  neither ;  whether  Galileo  or  his  persecutors  were 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


661 


right.  With  regard  to  all  these  and  like  matters,  the  Church 
is  profoundly  indifferent.  So,  if  the  answer  above  repeated  is 
correct,  the  Church  is  equally  indifferent  to  the  truth  or  false- 
hood of  the  similar  questions  touching  Evolution.  On  the  one 
hand,  so  far  as  the  Scriptures  contradict  Evolution,  so  far 
Evolution  is  thereby  proved  to  be  false,  and  it  is  not  worth 
while  to  discuss  it  further,  knowing  already  that  it  is  false. 
On  the  other  hand,  so  far  as  the  Scriptures  do  not  contradict 
Evolution,  it  may  be  true;  and  the  question  as  to  whether  it  is 
true  belongs  exclusively  to  science,  and  in  no  way  concerns  the 
vScriptures ;  it  can  never  be  the  duty  of  the  Church,  as  the 
divinely  appointed  custodian  and  teacher  of  the  Bible,  to  make 
any  decision  on  the  subject.  The  Church  is  to  teach  what  the 
Bible  teaches,  and  is  to  be  silent  where  the  Bible  is  silent. 

Having  shown  the  silence  of  the  Scriptures,  when  rightly 
interpreted,  some  of  the  reasons  for  believing  that  Evolution 
may  be  true  are  presented  in  the  concluding  part  of  the  Address, 
which  is  published  to-day. 

It  is  chiefly  to  what  is  said  in  this  part  that  the  statement 
refers  which  was  made  at  the  outset :  "Additional  study  has,  in 
some  respects,  to  a  certain  extent  modified  my  views  since  I 
expressed  them  to  many  of  you  in  the  class-room."  In  the 
Alumni  Association  are  members  of  the  classes  to  which  the 
Perkins  Professor  delivered  his  first  lectures  in  1861,  and  also 
of  all  later  classes  up  to  the  present  time.  In  1861,  and  for  a 
few  years  later,  after  presenting  all  the  arguments  urged  by 
Evolutionists  in  favor  of  their  views  as  fairly  as  he  could,  he 
stated  his  total  disbelief  in  the  conclusions  which  they  reached. 
But  as  year  after  year  he  continued  his  studies  in  zoology  and 
botany,  in  palaeontology  and  comparative  anatomy  and  physi- 
ology, and  as  he  became  better  acquainted  with  the  objects 
themselves  in  the  field,  in  the  cabinet,  and  in  the  anatomical 
laboratory,  his  confidence  in  the  grounds  of  his  disbelief  was 
more  and  more  shaken,  and  his  appreciation  of  the  reasons  in 
favor  of  Evolution  with  certain  limitations  constantly  increased ; 
so  that  in  later  years  in  expressing  his  opinion  he  was  in  the 
habit  of  saying  the  reasons  for  believing  were  strong  and 
plausible,  but  yet  that  he  was  not  convinced  by  them.  This  was 
the  state  of  his  mind  until  1880,  when  he  last  had  occasion  to 


662 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


express  his  opinion  in  the  class-room.  The  Senior  courses  of 
lectures  have  not  been  given  since  1880 ;  for  the  Seminary  was 
closed  for  two  years,  and  during  the  last  two  years,  as  the 
members  of  the  Senior  Classes  had  not  studied  the  earlier  parts 
of  the  course  in  this  department,  their  attention  was  given 
exclusively  to  these,  and  the  Senior  courses  were  not  reached. 
Since  that  time  additional  investigation,  additional  study,  addi- 
tional acquaintance  with  the  subject,  have  led  him  to  the 
conclusions  which  he  sets  forth  in  his  Address.  It  was  to 
prepare  his  former  pupils  for  the  changes  now  mentioned  that 
he  made  the  statement.  On  all  the  other  points  his  opinions 
have  undergone  no  substantial  change,  though  he  has  seen  more 
clearly  how  to  apply  them  in  certain  directions,  as  the  result  of 
further  study.  He  has  for  many  years  taught  that  there  is  no 
reason  to  be  found  in  the  Bible  why  we  may  not  believe  in 
Evolution  as  applied  to  the  earth,  and  to  plants  and  animals, 
even  while  declaring  his  disbelief  in  its  application  to  any  part 
of  the  organic  world.  As  he  himself  has  needed  so  many  years 
of  careful  investigation  in  so  many  branches  of  science  to  appre- 
ciate the  reasoning  on  the  subject  as  he  now  does,  he  is  not  in 
the  least  surprised  to  find  that  many  of  his  'friends  who  agree 
with  him  in  his  interpretation  of  Scripture  do  not  agree  with 
him  in  his  interpretation  of  the  facts  of  science. 

But  what  difference  does  it  make  as  to  his  religious  views  or 
as  to  theirs  whether  their  scientific  opinion  or  his  is  correct, 
provided  the  Scriptures  teach  nothing  on  the  subject?  Is  it  of 
any  more  religious  importance  than  whether  Calvin  and  Luther 
and  Melanchthon  on  the  one  hand,  or  Copernicus  on  the  other, 
were  right  in  their  astronomical  views? — the  three  Reformers 
holding  that  the  earth  is  the  centre  of  our  system,  and  the 
Roman  Catholic  priest  that  the  sun  is  the  centre.  Are  we  the 
less  inclined  to  accept  the  Reformed  doctrines  because  of  the 
scientific  errors  of  the  Reformers;  or  the  more  inclined  to 
accept  the  Papal  doctrines  because  the  priest  taught  what  we 
now  believe  to  be  true  science?  Or  would  the  case  be  altered 
if  the  Reformers  had  been  scientifically  right  and  the  Roman 
Catholic  wrong? 

But  if  the  Church  is  not  commissioned  to  teach  natural 
science,  why  is  it  taught  in  Theological  Seminaries  ?    The  Free 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


663 


Church  College  (Theological  Seminary)  at  Edinburgh  has  had 
a  chair  of  Natural  Science  for  more  than  thirty  years,  and  one 
has  just  been  established  in  the  Free  Church  College  (Theo- 
logical Seminary)  at  Glasgow  by  an  overwhelming  vote  of  the 
Presbyteries ;  a  chair  similar  to  the  Perkins  Professorship  was 
established  at  Andover  Seminary  a  few  years  ago,  and  still 
more  recently  one  of  somewhat  like  character  at  Princeton 
Seminary.  (In  this  case  it  is  rather  science  generally  and 
philosophy  than  natural  science  whose  relations  to  religion  are 
taught.)  It  is  thus  seen  that  the  need  of  such  teaching  is  more 
and  more  generally  recognised,  notwithstanding  the  objection 
suggested  above.  It  is  not  intended  here  to  answer  this  objec- 
tion ;  but  probably  few  would  insist  that  those  who  are  prepar- 
ing for  the  ministry  should  confine  their  studies  to  subjects  on 
which  they  expect  to  preach.  All  would  approve  of  their 
studying  Hebrew  grammar;  yet  who  would  not  condemn  the 
teaching  of  Hebrew  grammar  from  the  pulpit  ? 

The  title  of  the  Professorship  in  the  Columbia  Seminary 
plainly  sets  forth  the  duties  of  the  Professor :  "Natural  Science 
in  Connexion  with  Revelation."  Science  is  not  to  be  taught  for 
its  own  sake.  But  inasmuch  as  many  branches  of  natural 
science  have  been  thought  by  both  believers  and  infidels  to  be 
hostile  to  revelation,  it  is  necessary  to  examine  these  branches 
and  to  ascertain  how  far  they  contain  the  truth;  at  the  same 
time  that  the  words  of  revelation  supposed  to  relate  to  the  same 
subjects  are  studied,  so  that  their  exact  import  also  may  be 
determined.  Then  the  results  of  these  studies  are  compared. 
It  is  only  to  this  extent  that  science  is  made  the  object  of  Semi- 
nary study;  only  so  far  as  may  be  necessary  to  enable  the 
student — the  future  preacher  of  the  word — to  consider  intelli- 
gently questions  connected  with  the  relation  of  science  to  the 
Bible.  What  a  happy  thing  it  would  have  been  if  in  the  past 
preachers  of  the  gospel  had  been  so  taught  as  to  keep  them  from 
denouncing  astronomy  or  geology  as  infidelity,  and  thus  driving 
into  an  utter  rejection  of  the  Scriptures  all  who  knew  these  to 
be  true  sciences  and  who  accepted  such  preachers  as  accurate 
expounders  of  the  word  ! 

The  effect  of  such  study  and  teaching  is  absolutely  to  exclude 
from  the  pulpit  all  discussions  of  science,  and  to  confine  the 


664 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


preacher  to  that  which  alone  is  his  duty — the  delivery  of  the 
message  intrusted  to  him  by  his  Lord.  How  constantly  do  we 
hear  ministers  who  have  had  no  such  training  magisterially 
denouncing  as  false  that  of  which  they  are  totally  ignorant,  and 
with  regard  to  which  they  have  no  more  right  to  preach  than 
concerning  free  trade  or  the  national  banking  system. — Aug.  14. 


How  Far  is  Evolution  to  Be  Beueved? 

This  is  a  question  which  must  be  answered  according  to  the 
evidence  in  the  case.  This  evidence  is  to  be  derived  from  two 
sources:  the  word  of  God,  and  the  works  of  God.  Both  are 
absolutely  truthful;  but  in  both  are  some  things  "hard  to  be 
understood."  So  far  as  they  speak  of  the  same  things  from 
the  same  point  of  view,  they  must  agree  ;  but,  however  they 
speak,  both  being  absolutely  truthful,  they  cannot  contradict 
each  other. 

In  the  Address  on  Evolution,  the  publication  of  which  was 
concluded  last  week  in  this  journal,  an  outline  of  the  kind  of 
testimony  given  by  God's  works  on  the  question  is  presented. 
It  seems  to  the  writer  to  be  very  strongly  in  favor  of  the  truth 
of  Evolution  within  the  limits  pointed  out.  So  far  as  he  knows, 
there  is  not  the  least  reason  to  be  found  in  God's  works  for  the 
belief  that  the  organic  world  was  evolved  from  the  inorganic, 
or  that  the  spiritual  nature  of  man  was  evolved  from  the 
animal;  and  where  there  is  no  reason  to  believe,  he  does  not 
believe.  But  he  finds  an  amazing  array  of  testimony  in  favor 
of  the  belief  that  evolution  has  been  the  process  in  passing  from 
one  condition  to  another  within  the  inorganic,  and  from  one 
form  to  another  within  the  organic;  such  an  array  as  forbids 
his  disbelief,  unless  there  is  satisfactory  countervailing  testi- 
mony. And  this  testimony  must  consist  not  merely  in  the 
suggestion  of  difficulties,  but  it  must  contradict  the  testimony 
on  the  opposite  side,  before  it  can  deprive  it  of  all  weight. 

It  may  be  added  that  the  testimony  briefly  summed  up  in  the 
Address  has  revolutionised  the  belief  of  the  scientific  world 
during  the  last  twenty-five  years.  Twenty-five  years  ago  it 
was  the  almost  universal  belief  amongst  naturalists  that  species 
are  fixed  and  unalterable,  except  within  very  narrow  limits; 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


665 


now  it  is  the  almost  universal  belief  amongst  the  same  class  that 
existing  species  have  been  derived  from  former  species — that 
the  doctrine  of  descent  with  modification  is  true.  This  state- 
ment applies  to  naturalists  without  distinction  of  age,  country, 
or  religion.  Venerable  men  of  science  and  Christians,  like 
Professors  James  D.  Dana  and  Asa  Gray,  who  had  reached  or 
passed  the  age  of  fifty  before  they  changed  their  views,  are 
now  believers  in  evolution,  as  well  as  the  youthful  and  ardent 
students  of  natural  history.  So  it  is  with  naturalists  in  all 
lands,  whether  they  are  Christian  theists,  deists,  agnostics,  or 
atheists.  Twenty-seven  years  ago  Professor  Gray  said:  "All 
the  descendants  from  the  same  stock  compose  one  species.  .  .  . 
We  are  led  to  conclude  that  the  Creator  established  a  definite 
number  of  species  at  the  beginning,  which  have  continued  by 
propagation,  each  after  its  kind/'  Now  and  for  a  number 
of  years  he  has  been  a  leading  advocate  of  evolution.  Profes- 
sor Dana  states  as  the  "conclusions  most  likely  to  be  sustained 
by  further  research — 

"1.  The  evolution  of  the  system  of  life  went  forward  through 
the  derivation  of  species  from  species,  according  to  natural 
methods  not  yet  clearly  understood,  and  with  few  occasions  for 
supernatural  intervention. 

"2.  The  method  of  evolution  admitted  of  abrupt  transitions 
between  species ;  as  has  been  argued  by  Hyatt  and  Cope,  from 
the  abrupt  transitions  that  occur  in  the  development  of  animals 
that  undergo  metamorphosis,  and  the  successive  stages  in  the 
growth  of  many  others." 

In  these  and  many  like  instances,  a  careful  examination  of 
the  testimony  led  to  the  abandonment  of  opinions  which  had 
been  held  and  taught  for  years,  and  to  the  adoption  of  that 
which  had  been  long  resisted. 

When  it  is  said  that  a  large  majority  of  naturalists  believe  in 
evolution,  it  is  not  denied  that  there  are  some — and  some 
eminent  for  their  talents  and  knowledge  of  natural  history — 
who  still  reject  it,  and  continue  to  hold  the  doctrine  formerly 
taught. 

It  need  hardly  be  added  that  when  naturalists  are  spoken  of, 
it  is  not  meant  to  include  those  who  have  merely  read  a  few 
books  and  essays  about  natural  history  in  its  relations  to  other 


666 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


subjects;  but  only  those  who  have  diligently  studied  the  sub- 
jects involved  and  have  gained  knowledge  which  enables  them 
to  understand  and  to  appreciate  the  evidence  offered. 

For  reasons  given  in  the  Address,  it  is  thought  that  God's 
word  gives  no  testimony  on  the  subject,  so  far  as  the  earth  and 
the  vegetable  and  animal  kingdoms  are  concerned.  As  to  man, 
there  is  what  seems  to  the  writer  very  clear  and  definite  testi- 
mony to  the  effect,  1.  That  man's  soul,  his  spiritual  nature,  was 
immediately  and  not  mediately  created.  2.  That  Eve  was  not 
derived  from  ancestors,  but  was  miraculously  formed  from 
Adam.  But  how  is  it  as  to  man's  animal  nature?  The  first 
witness,  as  has  been  seen,  has  made  it  seem  very  probable  that 
the  higher  animals  generally  were  derived  from  the  lower,  and 
this  probability  includes  man  so  far  as  he  is  an  animal.  Does 
the  second  witness  contradict  the  presumption  thus  raised?  It 
certainly  seems  to  do  so.  But  a  careful  examination  of  the 
whole  record  makes  it  very  doubtful.  As  Principal  Dawson — 
a  decided  anti-evolutionist — says:  "The  expression  in  the  case 
of  man — 'out  of  the  dust' — would  seem  to  intimate  that  the 
human  body  was  constituted  of  merely  elementary  matter, 
without  any  previous  preparation  in  organic  forms.  It  may, 
however,  be  intended  merely  to  inform  us  that  while  the  spirit 
is  in  the  image  of  God,  the  bodily  frame  is  of  the  'earth  earthy', 
and  in  no  respect  different  in  general  nature  from  that  of  the 
inferior  animals." 

Professor  Gray  says :  "Man,  while  on  the  one  side  a  wholly 
exceptional  being,  is  on  the  other  an  object  of  natural  history — 
a  part  of  the  animal  kingdom.  If  you  agree  with  Quatrefages 
that  man  is  a  kingdom  by  himself,  you  must  agree  with  him 
that  this  kingdom  is  solely  intellectual ;  that  he  is  as  certainly 
and  completely  an  animal  as  he  is  certainly  something  more. 
We  are  sharers  not  only  of  animal  but  of  vegetable  life,  sharers 
with  the  higher  brute  animals  in  common  instincts  and  feelings 
and  affections.  .  .  .  Man,  in  short,  is  a  partaker  of  the 
natural  as  well  as  of  the  spiritual.  And  the  evolutionist  may 
say  with  the  apostle:  'Howbeit  that  was  not  first  which  is 
spiritual,  but  that  which  is  natural,  and  afterward  that  which  is 
spiritual.'    Man,  'formed  of  the  dust  of  the  ground',  endowed 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


667 


with  'the  breath  of  life',  'became  a  living  soul'.  Is  there  any 
warrant  for  affirming  that  these  processes  were  instantaneous  ?" 

From  these  considerations  and  those  presented  in  the 
Address,  it  seems  at  least  quite  doubtful  that  this  witness  testi- 
fies that  man,  so  far  as  he  is  animal,  was  formed  in  a  different 
way  from  other  animals.  And  until  this  doubt  is  removed,  it 
may  fairly  be  supposed  that,  so  far  as  he  is  an  animal,  man  was 
formed  as  other  animals  are,  namely,  as  has  been  shown  to  be 
most  probable,  by  evolution.  However  he  received  it,  whether 
from  inorganic  dust  or  through  preceding  animals,  it  is  certain 
that  Adam,  like  every  one  of  his  descendants,  had  an  animal 
nature  identical  in  form  and  functions  with  that  of  other 
animals. 

Some  persons  seem  to  think  that  creation  and  evolution  are 
contradictory  terms ;  that  to  say  that  a  thing  was  created  is  to 
say  that  God  made  it ;  but  to  say  that  it  was  evolved  is  to  say 
that  God  had  nothing  to  do  with  it.  Now,  atheists  do  use  these 
terms  in  this  way.  But  defining  evolution  as  a  process  or 
method,  such  language  is  wholly  erroneous.  Believers  in  God 
who  are  evolutionists  regard  evolution  as  one  of  the  ways  in 
which  he  accomplishes  his  designs.  When  it  was  first  taught 
that  the  planets  move  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  gravitation, 
the  outcry  was  raised  that  the  new  teaching  was  atheistic  ,*  that 
it  shut  out  God  from  his  universe.  It  was  maintained  in  the 
interests  of  theism  that  it  was  God  that  controlled  the  stars, 
and  not  gravitation,  that  to  believe  in  gravitation  was  atheistic. 
So  in  the  case  of  evolution.  Now  these  natural  laws,  as  they 
are  called,  are  merely  the  manifestations  of  God's  will.  Not  a 
sparrow  falls  to  the  ground  without  our  Father;  not  a  motion 
of  a  star  takes  place  except  as  caused  by  him;  but  the  uniform 
way  in  which  he  ordinarily  causes  particles  of  matter  to 
approach  each  other,  by  which  he  causes  the  sparrow  to  fall 
and  the  star  to  move,  we  call  the  law  of  gravitation.  But  it  is 
his  law;  it  is  the  ever-present  manifestation  of  his  will  and 
power.  So  in  the  creation  of  the  successive  generations  of  men, 
which  is  effected  by  the  law  of  descent,  we  have  again  his  will 
manifested ;  in  him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being.  And 
if,  as  seems  so  probable,  there  is  a  law  of  descent  with  modifica- 
tion, if  species  have  ever  been  derived  from  different  species,  it 


668 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


is  because  God  has  so  willed,  and  the  law  of  evolution  is  his 
mode  of  expressing  that  will.  In  every  part  of  his  universe  he 
is  ever  present  and  working  according  to  his  will  in  ways  which, 
when  we  know  them,  we  call  natural  laws,  as  truly  as  he  is 
working  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure  in  the  heart 
of  each  of  his  saints. 

Hence,  as  is  said  in  the  Address,  God  is  as  truly  the  Creator 
of  each  man  now  living  as  he  was  of  Adam,  whatever  the  mode 
of  that  creation.  So  if  he  chose  to  create  his  animal  nature  by 
an  "abrupt  transition",  such  as  Professor  Dana  speaks  of  above, 
from  some  previously  existing  animal  form,  in  accordance  with 
what  seems  to  have  been  his  method  of  deriving  other  forms 
from  each  other,  he  was  as  truly  his  Creator  as  if  he  had  made 
him  of  nothing  or  of  inorganic  dust  of  the  ground. 

Every  believer  in  the  Bible  believes  that,  while  God's  natural 
laws  are  ordinarily  uniform,  there  are  exceptions  to  this 
uniformity.  This  is  the  same  as  saying  that  one  cannot  believe 
the  Bible  without  believing  the  miracles  there  recorded.  Yet 
the  presumption  is  always  in  favor  of  the  uniformity  of  the 
laws  of  that  God  with  whom  is  no  variableness,  neither  shadow 
of  turning.  And  whenever  an  exception  is  asserted  to  exist, 
it  must  be  proved.  That  Eve's  creation  was  an  exception  is 
proved  by  the  statements  made  in  God's  word ;  if  the  statements 
as  to  Adam  were  equally  clear,  no  doubt  would  be  entertained 
as  to  his  forming  throughout  another  exception ;  but  so  long  as 
doubt  hangs  over  the  meaning  of  these  statements,  we  must 
suppose  that  he  formed  no  exception. 

Before  closing,  attention  should  again  be  called  to  the  fact 
that  so  far  as  the  Bible  is  silent,  it  can  make  no  conceivable 
difference  what  we  believe  as  to  evolution,  any  more  than  what 
we  believe  as  to  astronomy.  It  is  not  a  question  that  concerns 
religion.  The  chief  and  perhaps  only  interest  of  the  Church  in 
it  is  that  those  who  speak  in  her  name,  her  accredited  ministers 
and  teachers,  shall  know  enough  about  it  to  keep  from  denounc- 
ing it  as  inconsistent  with  Scripture,  or  indeed  from  teaching 
anything  on  the  subject;  in  brief,  as  already  repeatedly  inti- 
mated, when  speaking  as  God's  messengers  to  keep  from  utter- 
ing as  a  message  from  him  that  which  he  has  not  spoken. — 
Aug.  21. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


669 


Objections  Answered. 
The  Central  Presbyterian. 

Some  weeks  ago  we  stated,  with  regard  to  objections  to  the 
doctrines  set  forth  in  the  Address  on  Evolution  recently  pub- 
lished, that,  instead  of  replying  in  detail  to  each  as  it  appeared, 
it  would  "probably  be  better  to  wait  and  examine  together  all 
the  objections  that  may  deserve  attention."  All  the  criticisms 
likely  to  be  made  have  now  appeared;  and  there  is  therefore 
no  reason  to  wait  longer. 

We  need  hardly  say  that  we  do  not  intend  to  reply  to  all  that 
has  been  said  against  the  Address  and  its  author.  We  make 
no  reply  to  personal  abuse ;  those  who  think  that  by  indulging  in 
it  they  can  promote  the  interests  of  truth  and  the  interests  of 
the  religion  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  may  go  on  to  their  hearts' 
content  in  perfect  safety,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned:  to  their 
own  Master  they  stand  or  fall.  Further,  objections  based  on 
plainly  intentional  perversions  of  the  Address,  manifestly 
prompted  by  malignity  and  carried  out  with  dishonesty,  will 
receive  no  notice.  But  others,  so  far  as  they  are  honestly  made, 
or  may  in  the  judgment  of  charity  be  so  regarded,  will  be 
examined  as  fairly  as  possible. 

We  shall  confine  ourselves  to-day  to  the  criticisms  made  by 
the  Central  Presbyterian. 

That  journal  began  its  criticisms  (July  9),  as  our  readers  will 
remember,  by  asserting  that  Dr.  Woodrow  seems  not  to  believe 
a  portion  of  the  Bible,  but  to  regard  it  as  false.  Its  words  are : 
"The  language  he  uses  leaves  the  impression  that  he  regards  it 
[the  Mosaic  account  of  creation]  as  little  more  than  a  Hebrew 
legend."  That  is,  not  as  God's  word,  but  as  false.  What 
could  lead  it  to  say  so,  we  cannot  imagine.  It  was  not  anything 
contained  in  the  Address;  for  that  asserts  repeatedly  in  the 
strongest  form  the  exact  truth  of  every  word  of  the  Bible.  It 
could  hardly  be  because  of  the  fact  that  some  interpretations  of 
Scripture  suggested  were  thought  objectionable;  for  then  on 
the  same  ground  we  would  be  forced  to  declare  that  our  Armin- 
ian  brethren  do  not  believe  the  Bible,  that  they  are  infidels, 
because  they  do  not  interpret  certain  passages  as  we  do.  How 
it  could  allow  itself  to  bring  this  terrible  accusation  against  any 
one  without  a  shadow  of  proof,  we  cannot  conceive. 


670 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Two  weeks  later  it  says : 

"We  certainly  have  no  desire  to  attribute  to  Dr.  Woodrow 
views  which  he  does  not  hold,  and  it  gives  us  pleasure  to  learn 
that  the  impression  made  on  us  by  the  article  was  incorrect, 
and  that  Dr.  Woodrow  regards  the  account  given  of  creation  in 
Genesis  as  intended  to  be  an  inspired  statement  of  the  manner 
in  which  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth.  It  is  not 
necessary  for  us  to  go  into  an  explanation  as  to  how  we  received 
the  impression  from  his  article  that  he  held  different  views ;  it 
is  sufficient  that  he  disavows  this  construction." 

How  did  it  learn  that  the  impression  was  incorrect?  It  had 
not  a  particle  of  new  light.  When  we  called  attention  to  the 
charge,  and  expressed  our  regret  that  it  had  been  made,  we  did 
not  pronounce  it  untrue,  but  merely  placed  side  by  side  with  it 
a  quotation  from  the  Address,  leaving  our  readers  to  judge  of 
its  truth  for  themselves.  When  it  made  its  charge,  it  had  the 
Address  before  it,  with  the  strong  assertions  therein  contained 
to  the  contrary;  it  knew  that  at  least  twice,  when  he  was 
licensed  and  when  he  was  ordained,  in  the  most  solemn  manner 
the  author  had  asseverated  that  he  "believed  the  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  to  be  the  word  of  God"  and  not  a 
Hebrew  or  other  legend;  and  yet  it  allowed  itself  to  prepare 
the  minds  of  its  readers  for  a  discussion  of  his  views  by  holding 
him  up  as  not  believing  in  a  most  important  part  of  the  Bible. 
At  the  time  when  it  stated  that  its  "impression"  on  this  point 
was  incorrect,  we  repeat,  it  had  not  a  particle  of  new  light. 
The  charge  has  been  widely  copied ;  the  correction  has  not  been 
and  will  not  be,  so  that  the  cruel  wrong  can  never  be  undone. 

In  the  next  number  (July  16),  after  an  introductory  statement 
and  flattering  remarks  respecting  the  author,  it  says  that  Dr. 
Woodrow  "has  boldly  and  plainly  set  forth  his  convictions  so 
that  there  can  be  no  misconception  about  them;"  and  then  it 
proceeds  to  misconceive  them  at  almost  every  point,  and  to 
represent  as  his  views  what  he  utterly  disbelieves,  as  he  plainly 
shows  in  the  Address  under  criticism,  and  as  will  appear  from 
what  is  to  follow. 

It  recognises  the  fact  that  the  term  Evolution  is  used  in  differ- 
ent senses,  but  does  not  quote  the  author's  own  definition. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


671 


Indeed,  it  no  where  quotes  anything  he  says ;  so  that  its  readers 
have  no  means  of  learning  the  fact  that  it  is  not  his  views,  but 
generally  fancies  of  its  own  creation — immediate  creation  out  of 
nothing — that  it  is  combating.  It  includes  him  in  a  class  of 
evolutionists  which  it  describes,  and  subsequently  attributes  to 
him  opinions  which  it  supposes  to  be  entertained  by  other  mem- 
bers of  this  class.    It  then  says : 

"We  cannot  in  the  limits  of  a  newspaper  article  follow  Dr. 
Woodrow  in  his  argument  for  the  gradual  evolution  of  all  the 
animal  and  vegetable  life  on  the  globe  from  a  few  original 
forms.  It  has  struck  us  as  very  strange  that  he  has  made  no 
distinction  between  Evolution  in  its  received  sense  and  a  genetic 
connexion  in  the  succession  of  life.  There  is  a  wide  distinc- 
tion between  these  facts.  The  whole  animal  world  below  man 
may  be  connected  by  an  unbroken  chain  of  being,  as  Prof. 
Dana  seems  to  believe,  and  the  Darwinian  theory  of  evolution 
utterly  false.  There  might,  for  example,  be  some  genetic  con- 
nexion between  the  moluscan  life  of  the  Silurian  period  and  the 
vertebrate  fishes  which  suddenly  appear  upon  the  scene  about 
the  close  of  that  epoch  ;  but  the  transition  is  so  abrupt  and  the 
change  so  great  that  it  would  properly  in  an  account  like  that  in 
Genesis  be  called  a  creation.  And  so  of  the  sudden  introduc- 
tion of  the  mammalian  life  at  the  beginning  of  the  Tertiary 
Age.  But  Professor  WToodrow  provides  for  no  'immediate' 
creation  even  at  such  points  in  the  geological  record  as  these." 

Can  any  reader  of  the  Address  find  there  the  least  founda- 
tion for  these  statements?  "It  has  struck  us  as  very  strange 
that  he  has  made  no  distinction  between  Evolution  in  its 
received  sense  and  a  genetic  connexion  in  the  succession  of 
life" !  Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  this  is  the  very  thing 
he  has  most  carefully  done.  What  it  means  by  Evolution  in  its 
received  sense,  we  shall  not  venture  to  say;  but  the  author 
pointedly  refuses  to  say  what  he  thinks  of  Evolution  until  he 
defines  it;  and  in  his  definition  he  carefully  excludes  all  other 
definitions  except  "derivation",  "descent",  or,  in  the  case  of 
changing  forms,  "descent  with  modification".  And  this  is 
"genetic  connexion!'  What  else  is  intimated  in  the  Address 
than  that  there  may  "be  some  genetic  connexion  between  the 
molluscan  life  of  the  Silurian  period  and  the  vertebrate  fishes 


672 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


which  suddenly  appear  upon  the  scene  about  the  close  of  that 
epoch "and  so  of  the  sudden  introduction  of  the  mammalian 
life  at  the  beginning  of  the  Tertiary  Age"  ?  We  will  not  dwell 
on  the  mistake  made  in  this  last  clause ;  any  one  acquainted  with 
geology  knows  that  mammalian  life  had  been  introduced  at  a 
vastly  earlier  period.  The  possible  extent  of  transition  from 
form  to  form  is  no  where  discussed  in  the  Address ;  nor  is  the 
rate  at  which  changes  have  taken  place,  except  that  the  fact  is 
stated  that  under  certain  circumstances  they  take  place  rapidly, 
under  others  slowly  (p.  24).  We  agree  that  "the  transition  is 
so  abrupt  .  .  .  that  it  would  properly  ...  be  called  a  crea- 
tion" :  but  we  go  further,  and  say  that  in  all  cases,  whether 
the  transition  is  abrupt  or  not,  it  is  still  a  creation,  according  to 
Scripture  usage. 

The  last  sentence  quoted  above  is  a  puzzle:  "Professor 
Woodrow  provides  for  no  'immediate'  creation  even  at  such 
points  in  the  geological  record  as  these."  That  is,  he  "provides 
for  no  'immediate'  creation"  in  cases  where  the  creation  is 
mediate  according  to  its  own  showing!  Mediate  creation  is 
creation  by  derivation  or  descent;  that  is,  where  there  is 
"genetic  connexion".  It  says  the  "vertebrate  fishes"  and  also 
the  "mammalian  life"  may  have  thus  been  created,  that  is  medi- 
ately; and  then  blames  the  author  for  not  calling  this  mediate 
creation  "immediate." 

It  proceeds: 

"All  this,  however,  would  not,  perhaps,  be  regarded  as 
important  if  the  Professor  had  not  expressed  the  opinion  that 
man,  as  to  his  animal  nature,  was  probably  introduced  on  the 
earth  in  the  same  way  as  the  lower  animals. 

"Here  we  touch  the  domain  of  theology. 

"Dr.  Woodrow  believes  that  at  a  certain  stage  in  the  evolu- 
tion of  life  a  new  species  of  animals  which  we  call  elephants 
was  introduced,  descended  from  older  animal  forms.  He 
believes  that  at  a  certain  stage  a  new  species  called  the  horse 
was  introduced.  He  believes  that  at  a  certain  stage  a  new 
species  called  monkeys  was  introduced.  He  also  believes  that 
at  a  later  stage  a  new  species  appeared  on  the  earth  identical 
in  its  animal  structure  with  man.    This  being  God  afterwards 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


673 


by  an  immediate  miraculous  or  creative  act  endowed  with  a 
soul,  bearing  his  image. 
"This  is  Professor  Le  Conte's  theory. 

"We  have,  therefore,  instead  of  one  pair,  Adam  and  Eve,  as 
in  the  Biblical  account,  a  new  race,  the  offspring  of  animal 
progenitors.  This  race,  scattered  over  the  earth  we  may  pre- 
sume, is  suddenly  endowed  by  God  with  a  rational  and  moral 
nature." 

The  statement  of  Dr.  Woodrow's  belief  in  the  third  para- 
graph is  hardly  such  as  he  would  adopt ;  but  it  is  not  necessary 
to  comment  on  it  separately.  Nor  do  we  suppose  that  it  makes 
any  difference  in  this  discussion  whether  it  is  Professor  Le 
Conte's  theory  or  not,  or  indeed  what  his  theory  may  be. 

But  could  there  possibly  be  a  more  griveous  misconception  of 
the  teaching  of  the  Address  than  is  next  presented?  The 
individuality  of  Adam  and  also  of  Eve  is  in  that  Address 
assumed  from  beginning  to  end.  There  is  not  one  word  that 
could  possibly  suggest  that  the  author  intended  to  represent  a 
"new  race"  as  simultaneously  created,  while  there  are  many  that 
prove  he  could  not  so  intend.  And  it  is  an  equally  grievous 
misconception  to  suppose  that  this  necessarily  flows  from  the 
theory  of  descent  with  modification.  It  may  well  say,  "Scat- 
tered over  the  earth  we  may  presume!'  It  may  presume  it,  but 
the  presumption  has  not  the  slightest  basis  in  anything  taught 
in  the  Address ;  it  springs  wholly  from  "the  wild  imagining  of 
this  critic."  There  cannot  be  found  one  word,  as  there  is  not 
one  thought,  inconsistent  with  the  belief  of  the  author  that  "a// 
mankind  descended  from  ADAM  by  ordinary  generation, 
sinned  in  him,  and  fell  with  him  in  his  first  transgression." 

This  is  what  it  next  says : 

"Now  it  is  here  that  it  becomes  necessary  for  Professor 
Woodrow  to  harmonise  this  hypothesis  with  the  Biblical 
account  of  the  creation  of  Adam  and  of  Eve,  and  their  being 
placed  in  a  Garden,  where  as  the  representatives  of  the  race, 
they  were  subjected  to  a  probation,  involving  the  fate  of  man- 
kind. It  is  the  failure  to  realise  the  logical  results  of  the 
acceptance  of  this  doctrine  when  applied  to  the  introduction  of 
man  on  the  earth  which  has  allowed,  we  think,  some  most 
excellent  men  inadvertently  to  tolerate  it  as  a  harmless  opinion. 


43— w 


674 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


"It  appears  to  us  that  all  our  received  theology  is  sapped  at 
its  very  base  by  the  destruction  of  the  individuality  of  Adam, 
and  his  relation  to  us  as  our  federal  head.  If  the  theory  of 
Prof.  Le  Conte  and  Prof.  Woodrow  is  correct,  we  should  have 
to  rewrite  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  explain  on  some  new 
principle  the  introduction  of  sin  into  the  world,  and  our 
responsibility  for  that  sin.  We  should  have  to  frame  a  new 
theory  of  Redemption ;  and  when  we  had  learned  to  believe  that 
the  First  Adam  was  not  an  individual,  but  the  primeval  genera- 
tion of  soul-endowed  men,  we  might  have  to  revise  our  theology 
about  our  relations  to  the  Second  Adam,  and  might  probably 
be  brought  to  the  conclusion  by  some  future  investigators  that 
we  had  also  been  deluded  in  our  belief  in  his  individuality  and 
the  reality  of  the  scenes  enacted  on  Calvary." 

The  task  here  assigned  Professor  Woodrow,  happily  for  him, 
he  is  not  called  upon  to  undertake,  inasmuch  as  the  hypothesis 
is  not  his.  It  is  supposed  to  be  his  solely  because  of  an  unac- 
countable failure  to  understand  what  he  has  said.  "This 
doctrine"  not  being  his,  he  is  not  concerned  to  know  what  "the 
logical  results  of  the  acceptance"  of  it  would  be.  But  he  is 
greatly  concerned  and  amazed  to  observe  that  a  reputable  jour- 
nal can  causelessly  say  respecting  an  unimpeached  Presbyterian 
that  "if  the  theory  of  .  .  .  Professor  Woodrow  is  true,  we 
should  have  to  rewrite  the  Confession  of  Faith,"  and  reject  its 
fundamental  doctrines.  This  is  only  a  less  wrong  than  the 
charge  first  made,  that  he  seems  to  regard  part  of  God's  word 
as  little  more  than  a  Hebrew  legend.  It  surpasses  our  compre- 
hension how  such  a  wrong  could  be  committed  by  a  journal 
which  had  spoken  in  this  very  article  of  being  "strictly  just" 
and  forming  a  "fair  judgment",  and  had  said : 

"It  is  very  important  that  in  the  consideration  of  his  case  the 
Church  should  not  be  led  off  by  unintelligent  clamor,  for  there 
is  very  great  ignorance,  and  much  of  that  sort  of  blind  preju- 
dice which  ignorance  begets,  prevalent  on  this  subject." 

What  kind  of  justice  and  fairness  is  there  in  saying  that  he 
believes  what  he  has  given  no  reason  for  supposing  that  he 
believes,  and  that  since  he  believes  it  (which  he  does  not)  he 
ought  logically  to  desire  the  rejection  and  destruction  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith  which  he  has  "sincerely  received  and 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


675 


adopted  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures"  ?  That  journal  knew  that  he  professed  so  to 
receive  it ;  what  ground  can  it  find  in  his  Address  for  assailing 
the  sincerity  and  truthfulness  of  his  profession?  Must  there 
not  be  indeed  "very  great  ignorance,  and  much  of  that  sort  of 
blind  prejudice  which  ignorance  begets,  prevalent  on  this  sub- 
ject"? 

The  next  three  paragraphs  are  as  follows : 

"Paul  undoubtedly  believed  in  the  individuality  of  Adam, 
when  he  explicitly  declares,  'By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the 
world' ;  and  again — 'The  first  man  Adam  was  made  a  living 
soul,  the  last  Adam  was  made  a  quickening  spirit/ 

"If,  as  Prof.  Woodrow  would  seem  to  teach,  the  first  Adam 
was  not  one,  but  many,  how  did  it  happen  that  all  of  the  race 
fell?  It  would  have  constituted  a  marvellous  unanimity;  and 
if  all  did  not  fall,  what  became  of  the  sinless  ones? 

"And  what  shall  we  do  with  the  genealogical  tables  in 
Genesis,  and  the  longevity  of  the  patriarchs,  and  the  narrative 
of  Cain  and  Abel,  and  that  of  Enoch,  and  the  story  of  Noah? 
and  above  all  with  the  account  of  the  creation  of  Eve?" 

All  that  needs  to  be  said  touching  these,  is,  1.  That  the 
author  of  the  Address  shows  that  he  believes  just  what  Paul 
did ;  2.  That  Professor  Woodrow  does  not  "seem  to  teach  that 
the  first  Adam  was  not  one",  and  hence  these  questions  are  not 
put  to  him;  and,  3.  That  we  should  believe  everything  said 
about  the  patriarchs,  Cain  and  Abel,  Enoch,  Noah,  and  Eve, 
and  indeed  everything  else  in  the  Bible  from  beginning  to  end, 
exactly  in  the  sense  in  which  God  intends  we  shall  believe  his 
inspired  word,  so  far  as  he  may  enable  us  to  discover  what  that 
sense  is. 

In  the  rest  of  this  article  the  objection  is  made  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  slow  development  of  the  animal  nature  of  man 
from  lower  animal  forms  is  contradicted  by  the  ascertained 
facts  of  science — by  the  absence  of  connecting  links,  etc.  It 
is  sufficient  to  say  in  reply  to  this,  that  the  Address  does  not 
speak  of  "slow"  development — it  states  that  the  rate  varies 
greatly ;  and  further  that  no  naturalist  ventures  as  yet  to  define 
the  possible  amount  of  modification  consistent  with  genetic 
connexion  in  passing  from  stage  to  stage ;  while  the  connecting 


676 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


links  in  other  parts  of  the  animal  series  are  constantly  discov- 
ered in  increasing  numbers. 
The  closing  paragraph  is : 

"It  has,  therefore,  struck  us  with  astonishment,  that  as  Pro- 
fessor Woodrow  was  allowing  a  divine  intervention  just  at  this 
point  in  behalf  of  the  moral  nature  of  man,  he  should  almost 
have  gone  out  of  his  way  to  derive  the  other  half  of  this  new 
and  wonderful  being  by  slow  modifications  from  the  apes  or  the 
monkeys." 

If  Professor  Woodrow  had  been  framing  a  plan  of  his  own, 
this  suggesion  might  have  weight.  But  as  he  was  not,  but  was 
seeking  to  know  God's  plan,  it  has  none.  In  God's  word  he 
finds  reason  to  believe  that  there  was  a  special  divine  interven- 
tion in  the  creation  of  the  spiritual  nature  of  the  first  man, 
Adam,  with  nothing  in  God's  works  to  contradict  this  view; 
in  God's  works  he  finds  reason  to  believe  that  the  animal  nature 
of  the  first  man,  Adam,  may  have  been  derived  from  other 
animals  (he  says  nothing  of  apes  or  monkeys),  in  accordance 
with  what  seems  to  be  God's  ordinary  plan,  with  probably 
nothing  in  God's  word  to  contradict  this  view.  He  therefore 
reverently  believes  according  to  the  evidence  set  before  him  in 
the  word  and  in  the  works. 

The  next  number  of  the  Central  Presbyterian  (July  23) 
contains  two  columns  of  objections  to  Professor  Woodrow's 
supposed  views. 

The  first  consists  of  quotations  from  the  Scriptures  to  show 
that  the  first  man  Adam  and  the  first  woman  Eve  were  individ- 
uals, and  not  races.  As  this  is  precisely  what  Professor  Wood- 
row  believes  and  teaches  in  his  Address,  no  reply  is  needed. 
But  we  cannot  forbear  again  expressing  our  wonder  how  it 
came  to  attribute  these  views  to  him,  when  there  is  no  hint  of 
them  in  his  Address,  but  exactly  the  contrary.  The  misfortune 
is  that  the  great  body  of  its  readers  have  no  means  of  knowing 
any  better,  for  they  have  not  seen  the  Address,  and,  as  before 
stated,  it  gives  not  a  line  of  quotation  from  it.  The  only 
explanation  we  can  think  of — for  we  reject  the  suggestion  that 
the  misconception  is  intentional — is  that  it  classes  the  author 
amongst  the  "disciples  of  Darwin",  and  attributes  to  him  what- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


677 


ever  may  be  found  to  have  been  taught  by  any  one  of  them. 
But  how  can  such  a  course  be  defended? 

The  second  column  is  taken  up  with  arguments  to  show  that 
there  is  no  evidence  from  Science  that  man  is  the  product  of 
evolution.  Enough  has  been  said  on  this  point  above,  and  in 
previous  articles,  as  well  as  in  the  Address.  It  would  be  use- 
less to  present  the  evidence  more  fully  or  in  minuter  detail ;  for 
beyond  its  general  outlines  it  is  of  a  character  that  cannot  be 
appreciated  or  even  understood  by  those  who  have  not  care- 
fully studied  several  important  branches  of  natural  history. 

It  is  not  claimed  that  there  are  no  scientific  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  the  hypothesis.  But  the  scientific  evidence  for  so 
far  outweighs  the  scientific  evidence  against,  that  a  conviction 
of  the  probability  of  the  supposition  will  almost  certainly  be 
produced,  which  can  be  removed  only  by  proof  that  the  word 
of  God  teaches  otherwise. 

We  suppose  no  one  will  seriously  claim  that  we  are  not  to 
believe  anything,  or  even  regard  it  as  probable,  until  all  diffi- 
culties have  been  removed.  We  believe  that  God  foreordains 
whatsoever  comes  to  pass ;  we  believe  also  that  we  are  free 
agents — do  we  find  no  difficulty  in  reconciling  these  two  beliefs  ? 
Shall  we  wait  until  we  have  discovered  how  an  infinitely  good 
and  infinitely  powerful  God  could  allow  sin  to  enter  his  universe 
before  we  believe  that  he  is  infinitely  good  and  almighty  ?  No ; 
but  in  each  case  we  weigh  the  evidence,  and  decide  accordingly. 

As  regards  the  main  object  of  the  Address,  the  scientific 
question  is  of  subordinate  importance.  The  view  there  pre- 
sented is  that  whatever  the  Bible  teaches  is  to  be  believed  with- 
out question ;  that,  while  it  seems  at  first  sight  to  be  taught  that 
the  first  man's  body  was  made  of  inorganic  materials,  further 
examination  renders  it  doubtful  whether  or  not  that  is  really 
the  meaning;  and  that  just  to  the  extent  of  this  uncertainty  he 
may  be  believed  to  have  been  formed  of  other  than  inorganic 
materials.  When  this  point  is  reached,  and  we  proceed  to 
examine  the  evidence  in  favor  of  the  probability  of  genetic  con- 
nexion between  the  first  man's  body  and  a  previously  existing 
mammal,  it  appears  simply  overwhelming  to  those  who  have  it 
presented  to  them  and  whose  studies  have  prepared  them  to 
appreciate  it.    But  then,  as  in  the  case  of  astronomy,  it  makes 


678 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


no  difference  as  to  our  confidence  in  the  Bible  what  is  believed ; 
for  neither  belief  nor  disbelief  affects  that  which  is  of  infinite 
importance,  and  the  only  thing  of  much  importance,  namely, 
our  whole-hearted  belief  and  trust  in  the  Bible  as  the  very 
word  of  God. 

The  Central  Presbyterian  of  July  30th  contains  nothing  that 
calls  for  notice  from  us.  But  that  for  August  6th  contains  a 
most  remarkable  editorial  article.  The  single  thought  pre- 
sented is  that  the  demonstration  in  the  Address  that  the  Bible 
does  not  teach  science  was  intended  to  attack  the  veracity  of  the 
Bible's  statements.  It  is  true  the  Address  is  not  mentioned; 
but  we  give  the  following  quotations  in  order  that  our  readers 
may  judge  for  themselves  as  to  the  accuracy  of  the  statement 
we  have  just  made : 

"It  is  perfectly  true  that  the  Bible  was  not  intended  to  teach 
science.  It  uses  popular  language,  and  employs  terms  in  the 
sense  in  which  they  are  understood  by  the  common  people. 
But  we  must  not  infer  from  this  that  the  Bible  may  not  some- 
times undertake  to  state  facts. 

"It  is  not  the  object  of  the  Bible  to  teach  profane  history, 
but  when  it  makes  a  plain  historical  statement  about  Babylon, 
or  Nineveh,  or  Egypt,  its  veracity  is  involved  in  the  correctness 
of  that  statement. 

"It  is  not  the  object  of  the  Bible  to  teach  the  science  of 
ethnology,  and  yet  it  undertakes  in  the  tenth  chapter  of  Genesis 
to  make  many  statements  with  regard  to  the  various  races  and 
families  of  mankind,  and  its  veracity  is  involved  for  the 
correctness  of  these  statements." 

And  so  its  repetitions  go  on  through  the  whole  length  of  a 
dreary  column.  There  is  no  apparent  reason  why  it  did  not  go 
on  repeating  each  verse  in  the  Bible  from  Genesis  to  Revela- 
tion with  the  same  introduction  and  the  same  refrain.  Now, 
did  it  not  know  that  it  was  misleading  its  readers  by  thus 
implying  that  Professor  Woodrow's  teachings  would  cause  us 
to  doubt  the  "veracity  of  the  Bible"  in  any  statement  here 
made?  No;  it  cannot  have  known;  for  we  do  not  think  it 
would  intentionally  misrepresent.  But  how  could  it  help 
knowing?    Ah,  that  is  a  question  we  do  not  know  how  to 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


679 


answer.  It  had  the  Address  before  it.  It  knew  that  it  was 
there  stated  that  "it  is  not  correct  in  any  of  these  cases  to  say 
that  the  language  of  the  Bible  does  not  express  the  exact  truth." 
But  why  repeat  what  must  be  clear  to  every  one  who  has  read 
it,  that  it  teaches  the  "divine  inspiration  of  every  word  of  the 
Bible,  the  absolute  truth  of  every  expression  which  it  con- 
tains"? No,  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  account  for  its  miscon- 
ceptions. We  can  suggest  no  excuse  or  even  palliation  for 
them. — Aug.  28. 


The  Only  Question  at  Issue. 

The  only  question  at  issue  in  the  Evolution  discussion  which 
affects  the  Bible  seems  to  be : 

Does  the  Bible  certainly  teach  that  the  dust  of  which  Adam's 
body  was  made  was  inorganic  matter  ? 

Professor  Woodrow's  opponents  are  certain  that  it  does  so 
teach. 

He  thinks  that  probably  it  does  not. — Sept.  4. 


Objections  Answered. 
The  Central  Presbyterian — Continued. 

We  regret  that  it  seems  to  be  necessary  to  occupy  so  much 
space  with  Evolution,  etc. ;  but  we  are  persuaded  that  the  great 
majority  of  our  readers  will  agree  with  us  that  under  the  cir- 
cumstances it  cannot  be  avoided  consistently  with  justice  to  the 
truth  and  to  ourselves. 

In  our  number  for  last  week  we  considered  in  detail  the 
objections  urged  against  the  teachings  of  Professor  Woodrow's 
Address  on  Evolution  by  the  Central  Presbyterian  in  its  succes- 
sive numbers  from  July  9th  to  August  6th.  It  continues  its 
criticisms  in  its  numbers  for  August  13th,  August  20th.  and 
August  27th.  In  the  number  for  August  13th  it  reiterates  its 
sincere  desire  "to  do  Dr.  Woodrow  no  injustice";  and  says: 
"We  think  it  is  due  to  him  that  he  shall  state  and  express  in 
his  own  language  the  opinions  he  holds."  Accordingly  on  the 
13th  and  the  20th  ult.,  it  publishes  two  of  our  editorial  articles. 
We  are  glad  that  it  has  at  length  come  to  recognise  the  fairness 


680 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


of  this  course,  which  it  did  not  at  first  perceive;  for  as  we 
stated  last  week,  it  criticised  the  Address  week  after  week, 
without  ever  quoting  a  line  from  it.  We  are  fully  persuaded 
that  it  is  perfectly  sincere  in  its  desire  to  be  fair  and  just ;  we 
know  it  would  not  intentionally  misrepresent ;  it  honestly  wishes 
to  arrive  at  the  truth — of  all  this  we  have  not  felt  a  doubt.  If 
we  are  asked  how  we  can  be  so  confident  in  view  of  its  total 
misconceptions  of  the  teachings  of  the  Address  and  its  attribut- 
ing to  the  author  disbelief  in  the  Bible  and  the  holding  of  other 
opinions  which  require  him  to  reject  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
we  must  reply  that  we  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  its 
editors  are  upright  Christian  gentlemen,  and  it  is  not  possible 
for  those  who  deserve  to  be  so  characterised  intentionally  to 
misrepresent;  hence  we  adhere  to  our  belief,  notwithstanding 
the  unaccountable  misconceptions.  In  the  case  of  some  criti- 
cisms which  have  appeared  elsewhere,  it  is  quite  otherwise — 
the  intention  to  misrepresent  is  unmistakable ;  but  as  we  stated 
last  week,  of  these  we  shall  take  no  notice. 

The  Central  Presbyterian  next  insists  upon  the  right  to  criti- 
cise. Here  again  we  heartily  agree  with  it.  This  is  a  right  it 
should  never  surrender.  But  we  cannot  help  wishing  that 
when  it  says  it  is  criticising  Professor  Woodrow's  views,  it 
should  criticise  what  he  has  really  taught,  and  not  what  it 
erroneously  attributes  to  him — what  he  disbelieves  and  abhors. 

It  then  proceeds : 

"Our  present  object  is  to  ascertain  precisely  what  are  the 
opinions  which  Dr.  Woodrow  holds.  We  must  in  candor  say 
that  we  have  found  this  difficult  to  do.  There  is  not  that 
clearness  and  explicitness  on  certain  fundamental  points  which 
we  should  have  desired.  We  find  already  from  this  article  of 
Dr.  Woodrow  in  his  newspaper  that  we  did  not  understand  him 
correctly  on  a  very  important  point.  In  fact,  he  has  corrected 
us  twice;  and  we  are  compelled  to  think  that  in  both  cases  it 
was  his  own  incompleteness  of  exposition  in  propounding  his 
views  which  led  to  the  misapprehension." 

May  we  not  here  suggest  that  a  more  earnest  effort  at  an 
earlier  stage  to  ascertain  these  opinions  would  have  been  desira- 
ble, before  such  reiterated  misconceptions  and  sweeping 
condemnations?    We  cannot  judge  so  well  as  others  whether 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


681 


its  conspicuous  failure  resulted  from  a  want  of  clearness  and 
explicitness  in  the  Address  or  not.  But  we  find  that  others 
have  not  generally  experienced  that  difficulty.  Indeed,  it  says 
itself :  He  has  "plainly  set  forth  his  convictions  so  that  there 
can  be  no  misconception  about  them."  We  think  that  this  time 
it  was  right.  One  of  its  own  correspondents  (July  23rd) 
called  its  attention  to  one  serious  mistake  it  had  made — as  to 
Adam's  federal  headship — but  the  reply  was : 

"Of  course  Dr.  Woodrow  may  take  this  position.  We  do 
not  think,  however,  that  this  is  his  view.  It  will  be  time 
enough  to  notice  it  when  we  learn  that  such  is  the  fact." 

One  of  the  first  principles  of  interpretation  is  that  if  the 
different  expressions  of  an  author's  views  admit  of  reasonable 
interpretations  which  will  prevent  inconsistency,  such  interpre- 
tations must  be  adopted.  Applying  this  principle  in  this  case, 
it  would  have  proved  beyond  doubt  that  Dr.  Woodrow  had 
taught  nothing  inconsistent  with  Adam's  federal  headship, 
provided  his  language  could  be  reasonably  interpreted  in  accord- 
ance with  that  doctrine.  That  it  could  be,  the  Central  Presby- 
terian itself  admits.  Hence  it  was  bound  to  take  its  corre- 
spondent's view. 

But  as  we  are  not  the  best  judges  of  the  author's  perspicuity, 
we  rest  satisfied  on  this  point  with  the  testimony  of  numerous 
correspondents  who  have  assured  us  that  the  Address  was 
perfectly  clear.  We  can,  perhaps,  best  show  that  the  miscon- 
ceptions were  not  due  to  a  want  of  explicitness  by  quoting 
(without  endorsing  in  other  particulars)  the  editorial  article 
from  the  South  Atlantic  Presbyterian,  which  conclusively 
proves  in  various  ways  that  the  fault  was  not  in  the  Address : 

"We  hail  the  attempts  made  by  the  Central  Presbyterian  in 
its  last  number  (Aug.  13)  to  extenuate  its  unpardonable 
misunderstanding  of  Dr.  Woodrow's  Address  as  the  beginning 
of  a  return  to  reason  and  fairness.  We  would  do  all  we  could 
in  kindness  and  forbearance  to  encourage  this  return.  But  the 
consequences  of  its  recklessness  are  beyond  the  reach  of  any 
sacrifice  it  might  be  willing  to  make  to  repair  its  mistake.  We 
ask  it,  therefore,  to  review  with  us  its  course  in  this  controversy, 
and  to  contemplate  with  due  contrition  the  evil  it  has  done. 


682 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


"We  are  not  defending  Dr.  Woodrow.  He  is  able  to  take 
care  of  himself,  and  neither  needs  nor  wishes  any  assistance 
from  us.  It  is  the  cause  of  truth  we  are  espousing.  And  we 
say  unequivocally,  that,  no  matter  what  the  motives  influencing 
it,  the  Central  Presbyterian  is  responsible  more  than  any  other 
journal  in  the  South  for  the  erroneous  impression  in  regard  to 
the  Address  on  Evolution  which  has  been  spread  abroad 
throughout  the  Church,  an  impression  not  justified  by  anything 
in  the  Address  itself.  On  account  of  its  attacks  upon  the 
Address  some  unsophisticated  contemporaries,  influenced  by  its 
'reputation  as  a  scientist',  changed  from  one  side  of  the  fence 
to  the  other,  and  without  reason  or  method  joined  in  the  clamor 
which  has  disturbed  the  Church  and  irreparably  damaged 
Columbia  Seminary. 

"Without  publishing  Dr.  Woodrow's  Address,  which  we 
think  it  was  in  honor  bound  to  do,  the  Central  declared  (July 
16)  that  the  hypothesis  maintained  therein  'saps  at  its  very  base 
all  our  received  theology' ;  that  'if  it  be  correct,  we  should  have 
to  re- write  the  Confession  of  Faith,  explain  on  some  new 
principle  the  introduction  of  sin  into  the  world,  and  frame  a 
new  theory  of  Redemption'.  Could  anything  be  more  startling 
or  alarming  to  the  Church?  The  impression  was  made  that 
the  foundations  of  Christian  faith  in  the  minds  of  our  Seminary 
students  were  unsettled.  Letters  are  now  published  in  some 
Church  papers,  and  we  have  received  others,  expressing  fears 
that  anti-Christian  heresy  has  been  taught  our  young  ministers 
so  that  they  cannot  be  trusted  in  the  Church ! 

"And  now,  brethren  and  fathers  throughout  the  whole 
Church,  what  were  the  grounds  for  such  charges  made  by  the 
Central ?  Are  there  any  in  the  Address  itself  ?  We  will  prove 
to  every  fair,  candid,  and  truth-loving  mind  that,  as  the  Interior 
says,  'they  existed  only  in  the  wild  and  free  imaginings  of  its 
critics'. 

"First:  The  Address  itself  proves  that  it  is  capable  of  a 
different  construction  from  that  put  upon  it  by  the  Central,  by 
the  fact  that  it  made  an  entirely  opposite  impression  on  the 
Interior,  the  Independent,  the  Christian  at  Work,  and  ourselves, 
who  never  thought  for  a  moment  that  Dr.  Woodrow's  hypo- 
thesis  destroyed    the    individuality    of    Adam.    The  week 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


683 


following  our  own  review  of  the  Address  (the  first  favorable 
one  which  appeared),  the  Independent  thus  criticised  the 
Central: 

"  'Our  contemporary  imagines  that  Prof.  Woodrow  would 
hold  that  the  race  of  man  was  developed,  so  far  as  their  body  is 
concerned,  by  a  gradual  process,  which  brought  them  by  degrees 
out  of  apedom  into  humanity,  so  that  there  was  really  no  first 
man.  We  are  greatly  in  error  if  he  holds  any  such  view.  It 
would  not  be  a  natural  view  in  this  day  when  the  Darwinian 
theory  of  gradual  evolution  has  been  so  far  discredited.  We 
suppose  him  rather  to  suggest  that  a  single  and  sporadic  case 
of  sudden  development  per  saltum  occurred,  and  that  from  this 
one  first  man  the  whole  race  is  descended.  And,  in  accordance 
with  that  view,  he  seems  to  hold  that  the  woman  was  excep- 
tionally created,  as  related  in  Genesis.  If  that  be  Prof. 
Woodrow's  view,  then  all  this  long  argument  from  Scripture 
against  his  view  falls  to  the  ground.' 

"The  Interior,  referring  also  to  the  Central  Presbyterian, 
says : 

"  'But  Prof.  Woodrow  ought  to  have  fair  play,  which  he  does 
not  get,  by  a  long  way,  from  his  critics.  Our  contemporary 
first  imputes  to  him  the  theory  that  a  widely  scattered  and 
perhaps  numerous  race  of  anthropoids  were  suddenly  endowed 
with  a  rational  and  moral  nature,  i.  e.,  made  into  men.  The 
truth  is,  that  Prof.  Woodrow  only  teaches  that  the  dust 
employed  in  making  the  original  pair  was  red  dust  in  an  organic 
form/ 

"The  Christian  at  Work,  in  the  extract  we  gave  last  week, 
while  objecting  to  and  ridiculing  Dr.  Woodrow's  theory,  scien- 
tific attainments,  and  capacity  to  teach,  bears  this  unqualified 
testimony  to  his  orthodoxy : 

"  'There  is  nothing  that  we  see  in  Prof.  Woodrow's  position 
inconsistent  with  his  character  as  an  evangelical  teacher.  He 
holds  to  Evolution  as  a  means  used  by  God  in  extending  the 
work  of  creation:  there  is  no  Hseckelism  here — no  atheism, 
nothing  of  Mr,  Spencer's  "Unknowable  Power".  God  working 
through  Evolution  is  Prof.  Woodrow's  position.  It  is  an 
allowable  position.  .  .  .  We  do  not  doubt  Prof.  Woodrow's 


684 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


thorough  evangelicalism  and  profound  reverence  for  God  and 
his  written  word.' 

"Our  own  impression  of  what  Dr.  Woodrow  meant  was 
given  two  weeks  ago,  but  is  here  repeated : 

"  'In  regard  to  the  creation  of  man's  body  mediately,  through 
descent,  Dr.  Woodrow  shows  by  analogies  that  the  language  of 
Scripture  does  not  necessarily  exclude  it.  It  does  not  decide 
whether  the  dust  of  which  man's  body  was  made  was  of  inor- 
ganic matter,  like  that  to  which  it  returns  at  death ;  or  whether 
it  was  organised  dust,  like  Adam  himself  when  God  said  to 
him,  "Dust  thou  art".' 

"This  last  quotation  is  made  to  show  how  the  word  'man'  is 
used  by  one  who  had  no  suspicion  that  Dr.  Woodrow  gave  to 
the  term  any  other  meaning  than  it  had  in  the  word  of  God  he 
was  considering.  Dr.  Woodrow  himself  in  an  explanatory 
editorial  quoted  in  the  Central,  says : 

"  'It  is  not  even  remotely  suggested  that  God  changed  races 
of  animals  into  men ;  no  amount  of  ingenuity  could  extort  such 
an  idea  from  any  part  of  the  Address.  .  .  .  The  Bible  teaches, 
as  all  admit,  that  God  at  first  created  one  man,  beginning  with 
the  body.  God  then  went  on  to  complete  his  work  by  placing 
his  own  image  in  this  body  as  its  dwelling  place.  Is  it  asked, 
How  and  at  what  stage  was  this  done?  We  reply,  We  know 
not.' 

"Now,  what  excuse  does  the  Central  give  for  so  far  mis- 
understanding the  Address  as  grossly  to  pervert  its  meaning, 
and  charge  an  innocent  man,  an  instructor  of  our  candidates  for 
the  ministry,  with  'holding  opinions  which  imperil  the  theology 
taught  in  our  standards' ;  and  to  imply  that  'he  ought  not  to 
expect  to  represent  the  Church  at  the  very  source  where  its 
doctrines  were  taught'?    Its  defence  is: 

"  'When  told  by  a  scientific  man,  that  man  was  the  product  of 
evolution,  we  inferred,  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  (like  other 
naturalists)  he  was  speaking  of  the  evolution  of  species.' 

"And  again : 

"  'We  thought  (naturally  and  logically)  that  Dr.  Woodrow 
having  avowed  in  his  Address  that  man's  animal  structure  was, 
like  the  animals  below  him,  and  the  plants,  the  product  and  out- 
come of  evolution,  he  must  hold  with  Prof.  Le  Conte  that  Adam 
in  the  Bible  was  a  mere  figurative  term  for  the  Adamic  race.' 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


685 


"Such  a  view  was  only  possible  on  two  suppositions,  both  of 
which  the  Central  would  reject  with  indignation:  Either  that 
Dr.  Woodrow  was  not  intelligent  enough  to  see  (what  the 
Central  so  quickly  saw)  that  this  view  'sapped  at  its  very  base 
all  our  received  theology  by  destroying  the  doctrine  of  federal 
headship',  etc.,  etc.,  as  already  quoted  above;  or  that  if  Dr. 
Woodrow  was  intelligent  enough  to  see  these  consequences, 
then  he  was,  without  mitigation  or  qualification,  a  liar,  just  as 
unworthy  of  trust  by  the  Church,  when  he  so  solemnly  pro- 
tested in  his  Address — 'I  have  found  nothing  in  my  study  of 
the  Bible  and  of  natural  science  that  shakes  my  firm  belief  in 
every  word  of  the  Bible,  and  in  the  consequent  absolute  truth, 
the  absolute  inerrancy,  of  every  expression  it  contains,  from 
beginning  to  end'.  And  with  this  alternative  staring  it  in  the 
face,  the  Central  dashes  recklessly  in  with  its  unwarrantable 
assumptions,  and  inflicts  greater  damage  upon  the  Church  than 
any  other  religious  paper  has  done  in  a  century ! 

"But  let  us  see  what  reason  there  is  in  its  excuse  for  this 
misunderstanding  of  Dr.  Woodrow' s  language;  let  us  turn  to 
the  Address  itself  and  read  its  very  words.  On  page  16,  Dr. 
Woodrow  passes  right  on  from  considering  'the  plants  and  the 
animals  below  man,  as  the  product  and  outcome  of  evolution' 
to  the  account  of  the  origin  of  man.  And  how  does  he  intro- 
duce it  ?    Why,  in  the  very  words  of  Scripture.    He  says : 

"  'When  we  reach  the  account  of  the  origin  of  man  we  find 
it  more  detailed.  In  the  first  narrative  there  is  nothing  that 
suggests  the  mode  of  creating  any  more  than  in  the  case  of  the 
earth,  or  the  plants  and  animals.  But  in  the  second,  we  are 
told  that  "the  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground, 
and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life,  and  man  became 
a  living  soul."  ' — Gen.  ii.  7. 

"And  now  every  word  that  follows  as  to  man,  all  that  the 
Central  criticised  with  such  gross  perversion,  has  for  its  ante- 
cedent this  'man'  of  Gen.  ii.  7.  It  is  this  that  is  'a  matter  of 
course',  it  is  this  which  we  are  to  'think  naturally  and  logi- 
cally'— that  if  the  language  of  Scripture  meant  an  individual, 
then  Dr.  Woodrow  was  speaking  of  that  individual  man  and 
none  other ;  and  that  you  cannot  suppose  that  he  was  using  the 
word  man  as  'a  mere  figurative  term  for  the  Adamic  race,  or  an 


686 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


ethnic  designation',  unless  just  previously  used  by  inspiration  in 
the  same  sense.  There  is  no  escape  from  this  conclusion,  or 
evading  the  force  of  this  argument  to  show  how  natural  it  was 
to  the  unprejudiced  reader  to  suppose  Dr.  Woodrow  was  speak- 
ing of  the  first  man  Adam — the  type  of  Christ,  in  more  ways, 
perhaps,  than  we  have  yet  found  out. 

"Having  shown  how  the  perversion  of  Dr.  Woodrow's  lan- 
guage by  the  Central,  though  without  malice,  was  entirely 
gratuitous  in  itself,  and  could  only  have  proceeded  from  what 
the  Interior  calls  'the  wild  and  free  imaginings  of  his  critics', 
we  have  a  very  important  question  to  ask  in  regard  to  the 
Central  itself  as  an  organ  of  the  Church  for  the  enlightenment 
of  its  people.  And  we  wish  the  Central  to  'face  the  music', 
and  not  hide  under  the  evasion  of  a  dislike  of  personal  contro- 
versy. Has  not  the  Central  proved  itself  utterly  unfit  to  be 
trusted  in  a  discussion  of  the  kind  which  has  been  going  on  for 
a  month  in  the  Church?  Should  it  not  have  had  intelligence 
enough  to  see  the  dilemma  we  have  just  pointed  out,  into  which 
it  has  brought  itself — of  maintaining  that  Dr.  Woodrow  is 
either  a  fool  not  to  see  the  consequences  in  theology  of  the 
opinions  he  professed;  or  granted  that  he  was  as  intelligent  as 
the  Central,  and  saw  the  evident  and  necessary  consequences  of 
his  own  opinion — of  maintaining  that  he  could  falsely  declare 
his  belief  in  the  doctrines  contradicted  by  his  science,  when  he 
explicitly  declares  in  this  very  Address  that  'contradictions  are 
falsehoods'  ?  And  would  not  this  dilemma,  from  which  it  can- 
not possibly  escape,  have  preserved  one  of  true  scientific  habit 
of  thought  from  making  such  sweeping  and  reckless  charges 
against  a  Professor  in  Columbia  Seminary  to  the  scandalising 
of  the  whole  Church,  to  the  impaired  usefulness  of  every 
young  candidate  in  that  Seminary  by  bringing  him  under 
suspicion  of  unsoundness  in  doctrine,  and  to  the  alienating 
from  that  Seminary  of  thousands  of  friends  ?  The  rising  con- 
sciousness that  it  has,  perhaps,  made  a  great  mistake  is  plainly 
manifest  to  the  careful  reader  in  the  involved  repetitions  of  the 
Central's  last  editorial  (Aug.  13.)" 

The  Central  Presbyterian  then  proceeds  to  say  that  it  sees  no 
force  in  the  distinction  made  in  the  Address  "between  science 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


687 


'not  contradicting'  the  Bible  and  being  'in  harmony  with'  the 
Bible."    It  adds : 

"All  that  Dr.  Woodrow  has,  therefore,  said  on  this  subject 
in  his  Address  and  article,  we  regard  as  of  no  value." 

Here,  again,  we  do  not  like  to  trust  our  own  opinion  too 
implicitly.  But  after  many  years  of  observation  of  the  work- 
ing of  this  principle,  and  the  testimony  of  large  numbers  of 
devout  and  intelligent  persons  who  have  practically  applied  it 
in  their  pastoral  work,  we  are  persuaded  that  it  is  of  the  highest 
value,  and  that  its  adoption  and  fair  application  would  at  once 
honorably  end  the  sad  conflict  which  has  been  carried  on  in  the 
name  of  science  and  of  religion  for  the  last  fifteen  hundred 
years ;  while  if  the  principle  of  "harmony"  shall  continue  to  be 
insisted  on,  we  shall  continue  to  witness  the  ridiculous  and 
humiliating  and  death-bringing  spectacle  of  scheme  after 
scheme  of  "reconciliation"  and  "harmony"  scarcely  formed 
before  some  increased  knowledge  of  God's  works  or  some 
clearer  apprehension  of  the  meaning  of  God's  word  shall  rele- 
gate these  "harmonies"  to  the  limbo  of  exploded  absurdities. 
But  recognising  the  two  principles  of  non-contradiction  and  of 
the  non-scientific  character  of  Bible  language  and  teachings,  the 
war  between  the  noble  armies  of  the  expounders  of  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  and  the  interpreters  of  nature  is  ended  and  ended 
for  ever. 

It  continues : 

"The  second  observation  we  would  make  is,  that  it  is  not  Dr. 
Woodrow's  views  on  the  general  question  of  Evolution  which 
concerns  the  Church,  but  what  he  thinks  of  these  views  as 
applied  to  man.  If  any  one  chooses  to  believe  in  the  doctrine 
of  Evolution,  but  recognises  certain  immediate  creative  acts  on 
the  part  of  God  at  certain  points  (including  the  appearance  of 
man  on  the  earth),  his  belief  in  the  doctrine  thus  limited  is 
perfectly  harmless.  Therefore,  what  we  are  concerned  to  know 
is  simply  Dr.  Woodrow's  views  as  to  the  origin  of  man." 

With  this  observation  we  fully  agree.  The  "harmlessness" 
of  the  doctrine  of  Evolution  as  he  defines  it,  without  reference 
to  its  truth  or  falsehood,  is  precisely  what  Professor  Woodrow 
has  been  teaching  for  many  years.  The  recognition  of  the  fact 
that  "the  only  question  at  issue,"  as  we  elsewhere  term  it,  is 


688 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


the  relation  of  Adam's  animal  nature  to  Evolution,  is  a  decided 
step  forward  in  this  discussion. 
It  proceeds : 

"The  third  point  we  would  comment  on  is  that  Dr.  Wood- 
row  strangely  assumes  that  if  he  can  make  it  appear  that  the 
'dust'  out  of  which  man  was  created  was  'organic  dust',  he  has 
proved  that  man  was  the  product  of  Evolution.  This  does  not 
follow  at  all." 

And  this  is  not  his  assumption  at  all.  But  he  rightly  assumes 
that  if  the  Bible  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  the  dust  was 
inorganic,  then  we  may  inquire  elsewhere  what  it  was,  and  try 
to  find  out  otherwise  what  the  process  of  its  transformation 
was.  The  Bible  teaches  that  it  was  God's  creative  work,  what- 
ever the  material  and  whatever  the  process ;  but  so  far  as  it  is 
silent  respecting  either,  it  cannot  contradict  any  supposition  that 
can  be  made.  Then,  no  Biblical  reason  to  the  contrary  exist- 
ing, the  origin  of  man,  so  far  as  he  is  an  animal,  might  properly 
be  referred  to  the  same  category  as  the  origin  of  beings  which 
are  merely  animals. 

Both  here  and  in  the  number  for  August  27th,  it  quotes 
Professor  Dana  as  opposing  Professor  Woodrow's  views.  But 
the  truth  is  that  he  teaches  exactly  what  Professor  Woodrow 
does.  The  Central  Presbyterian  represents  him  as  believing 
"that  Adam  was  probably  the  direct  offspring  of  one  of  the 
lower  animals."  And  it  quotes  (August  27th)  the  following 
from  a  letter  written  by  Professor  Dana  in  1879 : 

"I  admit  that  it  [man's  creation]  may  have  been,  and  proba- 
bly was,  creation  from  an  inferior  species,  and  not  directly  from 
lifeless  or  inorganic  matter;  in  this  agreeing  with  the  late 
Professor  Tayler  Lewis  among  theologians." 

Now,  this  is  exactly  what  is  taught  in  the  Address  as  proba- 
bly true.  This  is  what  is  there  termed  Evolution — descent  with 
modification.  It  is  true  that  Professor  Dana  goes  on  to  say: 
"But  I  show  that  either  is  rightly  a  creation  if  it  be  the  direct 
consequence  of  a  divine  fiat."  Just  what  he  means  by  this  and 
similar  expressions,  we  are  not  sure,  and  it  does  not  concern  us 
to  inquire;  but  it  remains  evident  that  he  regards  Adam  as  to 
his  animal  nature  as  "probably  the  direct  offspring  of  one  of  the 
lower   animals" — as   illustrating  therefore  the   doctrine  of 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


689 


descent  with  modification.  And  all  Christians  agree  that  in 
any  case  man's  creation  is  the  result  of  the  divine  will. 

The  Central  Presbyterian  next  reiterates  what  it  had  previ- 
ously said  as  to  Adam's  individuality,  slow  evolution,  missing 
links,  the  evolution  of  species,  etc.  Probably  what  we  said  on 
these  points  last  week  and  the  week  before  may  be  sufficient. 
As  we  have  shown,  Professor  Woodrow  does  not  say  anything 
in  favor  of  "slow"  evolution ;  and  he  could  not  have  been 
supposed  to  believe  that  it  was  necessarily  slow  on  the  ground 
that  all  evolutionists  so  believe,  for  they  do  not;  indeed,  there 
has  been  a  decided  tendency  for  some  years  to  believe  in 
"abrupt  transitions",  "paroxysmal  evolution",  as  all  students 
of  natural  history  know. 

It  is  hard  for  us  to  understand  what  it  means  as  to  the  evolu- 
tion of  species  when  it  says : 

"Evolution  moves  by  modifying  species  No.  1,  species  No.  2, 
species  No.  3,  species  No.  4,  etc.,  until  finally  some  new  species 
widely  removed  [a  new  order  in  the  case  of  man]  is  formed." 

It  surely  can  hardly  mean  that  all  the  individuals  of  species 
No.  1  are  simultaneously  similarly  modified  so  as  to  produce 
species  No.  2,  all  of  No.  2  changed  into  No.  3,  etc. ;  we  do  not 
suppose  any  evolutionist  ever  held  such  a  view  as  this.  But  we 
cannot  understand  what  it  does  mean. 

Without  undertaking  to  explain  the  steps,  we  may  refer,  as 
perhaps  throwing  some  light  on  the  subject,  to  the  manner  in 
which  varieties  are  now  formed.  Every  one  acquainted  with 
the  subject  knows  that  frequently,  say  in  a  flock  of  sheep,  or  a 
herd  of  cattle,  a  single  individual  appears  widely  different  in 
some  particulars  from  the  rest  of  the  flock  or  herd,  which 
remain  wholly  unchanged.  These  cases  we  call  accidental ;  but 
that  means  only  that  we  do  not  know  the  causes ;  they  are  not 
the  less  manifestations  of  God's  will.  The  whole  flock  does  not 
change,  but  only  a  single  individual,  and  from  this  proceeds  the 
variety  or  race.  Why  may  it  not  be  in  the  production  of  species 
as  it  often  is  in  the  production  of  varieties  and  races — in  each 
case  the  series  beginning  with  an  individual  ? 

Its  last  two  paragraphs  (Aug.  13th)  are: 

"The  only  possible  way  in  which  Dr.  Woodrow  can  escape 
this  is  to  adopt  the  idea  suggested  by  the  Independent,  that  the 


44 — w 


690 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


evolution  of  man  was  sporadic  and  paroxysmal,  that  he  made 
the  leap  from  the  brute  form  at  a  single  bound.  And  as  Dr. 
Woodrow  concedes  that  Eve  was  created  this  way,  we  cannot 
conceive  why  he  should  balk  at  allowing  Adam  to  originate  in 
the  same  manner.  In  fact,  we  do  really  think  that  Dr.  Wood- 
row's  position  is  thoroughly  illogical,  and  that  it  would  only  be 
just  to  himself  to  revise  his  theory  at  this  point.  At  present  it 
is  unique,  arbitrary,  and,  we  add  without  meaning  to  be  disre- 
spectful, fantastic.  It  is  indefensible  on  either  scientific  or 
theological  grounds. 

"The  Christian  at  W ork  has  well  remarked  on  this  that  'when 
Professor  Woodrow's  position  makes  Adam's  body  the  product 
of  evolution,  and  Eve's  the  result  of  creation — it  involves  a 
muddle  and  jumble  which  ensures  its  downfall'.  'We  can 
understand,'  says  the  same  paper,  'how  a  scientist  can  hold  to  a 
theory  of  development  from  a  few  lower  organisms.  But  when 
one  puts  man  in  the  category  with  monkeys,  and  woman  with 
the  angels,  he  takes  a  position  as  unscientific  as  it  is  untenable 
and  absurd.'  " 

As  to  Dr.  Woodrow's  "balking  at  allowing  Adam  to  originate 
in  the  same  manner"  as  Eve,  we  have  to  say  he  certainly  would 
not  balk  at  it,  if  there  were  any  proof  of  it.  The  Bible  does 
not  say  that  he  originated  in  the  same  manner,  but  on  the  con- 
trary that  the  manner  of  creation  in  the  two  cases  was  wholly 
different.  But  we  do  not  profess  to  understand  the  details  in 
either  case.  We  believe  that  Adam's  "rib  which  the  Lord  God 
had  taken  from  man,  made  he  a  woman;"  but  just  how  he  did 
it  we  do  not  claim  to  know ;  we  believe  he  did  it  because  he  has 
said  it.  We  likewise  believe  all  that  he  says  of  the  formation 
of  man,  though  for  reasons  given  the  description  of  the  process 
in  part  seems  not  so  clear  as  in  the  case  of  woman.  If  it  is 
"fantastic"  or  "illogical"  to  believe  exactly  what  the  Bible  says 
and  not  to  be  very  positive  where  its  meaning  seems  not  quite 
clear,  we  must  plead  guilty.  We  confess  likewise  that  we  can 
offer  no  scientific  explanation  of  Eve's  creation,  or  of  the 
creation  of  Adam's  spiritual  nature,  any  more  than  we  can  of 
the  creation  of  the  wine  at  Cana  or  any  other  extra-natural 
event.    Science  has  to  do  with  God's  ordinary  methods  and 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


691 


with  them  alone.  But  none  the  less  do  we  believe  every  state- 
ment which  God  has  made  in  his  word. 

The  Central  Presbyterian  and  the  Christian  at  Work  agree  in 
finding  Professor  Woodrow's  position  to  be  a  "muddle  and 
jumble,"  "as  unscientific  as  it  is  untenable  and  absurd."  How- 
ever this  may  be,  he  finds  no  difficulty  in  holding  it.  It  may  be 
very  consistent  and  logical  and  scientific  to  believe  that  all  men 
have  been  created  in  the  same  way,  but  he  cannot  believe  what 
is  so  contrary  to  God's  word.  He  believes  that  Adam  was 
created  in  one  way,  Eve  in  another,  their  first-born  in  another ; 
do  his  critics  believe  otherwise?  So  he  believes  in  the  "fantas- 
tic" "muddle  and  jumble"  that  one  part  of  the  wine  at  Cana  was 
the  juice  of  the  grape,  and  that  the  other  best  part  was  not; 
what  do  they  believe?  He  believes  that  the  first-born  of  Alary 
was  as  truly  and  really  her  son  as  that  the  first-born  of  Eve  was 
hers;  but  that  to  the  mere  human  nature  of  Mary's  Son  was 
added  another  nature  which  caused  him  to  be  adoringly  called 
"God  with  us."  This  all  may  be  "fantastic,"  "unscientific," 
and  a  "jumble" ;  but  from  this  belief  by  nothing  in  the  universe 
can  he  be  separated. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  more  in  reply  to  the  Central 
Presbyterian.  Its  criticisms  and  objections  in  the  numbers  for 
Aug.  20th  and  Aug.  27th  have  already  been  answered  above  or 
in  what  was  said  last  week. — Sept.  4. 

Objections  Answered. 
The  Texas  Presbyterian. 

The  Texas  Presbyterian  begins  its  objections  (Aug.  8th)  to 
the  views  maintained  in  the  Address  on  Evolution  by  stating 
that  there  are  many  among  the  most  learned  of  scientists  "who 
say  that  it  [evolution]  is  clearly  disproven,  so  far  as  the  present 
state  of  knowledge  is  concerned,  by  the  facts  of  geology."  We 
are  inclined  to  doubt  the  accuracy  of  this  statement;  but  of 
course  the  journal  making  it  must  have  known  who  the  learned 
scientists  are  to  whom  it  refers,  and  we  beg  that  it  will  do  us 
and  its  other  readers  the  favor  of  giving  their  names. 

After  modestly  saying  that  it  does  not  "claim  to  be  learned  in 
the  matter,"  it  proceeds  to  state  that 


692 


DR.  JAMSS  WOODROW. 


"To  admit  the  possibility  of  it,  we  must  suppose  that  a  race 
of  animals  was  slowly  evolved  through  thousands  or  millions  of 
years,  till  their  bodies  attained  the  present  perfection  of  the 
human  body  and  then  one  of  them  called  Adam  became  the 
possessor  of  a  human  soul,  and,  if  we  stick  to  the  Bible  narra- 
tive, no  female  of  the  race  had  attained  to  the  same  perfection 
of  structure,  and  a  rib  had  to  be  taken  out  of  Adam  to  make 
for  him  a  partner  of  his  joys.  That  the  females  of  the  race 
were  so  inferior  to  the  males  may  be  no  objection  to  the  theory, 
but  this  by  the  way.  Such  a  race  of  animals  must  have  been 
at  some  time  during  their  slow  progression,  very  numerous." 

Then  after  asking  what  became  of  this  race,  and  what 
evidence  there  is  that  such  a  race  ever  existed,  it  concludes  by 
adding  that  the  "Professor's  theory"  "involves  things  too 
absurd  even  to  laugh  at." 

The  following  week  (Aug.  15th)  it  again  offers  brief  com- 
ments, without  adding  materially  to  what  we  have  quoted  above, 
except  that  it  speaks  of  the  theory  as  one  "which  shows  such  a 
tendency  to  run  into  an  atheistical  theory." 

Beginning  with  the  last  quotation,  we  would  say  that  it  is 
hard  to  see  how  a  theory  can  be  of  atheistical  tendency  which 
describes  one  of  God's  modes  of  working.  Theists  holding  this 
theory  ascribe  every  step  in  the  process  to  God.  If  the  atheist 
claims  that  it  excludes  God,  he  can  do  so  only  by  wickedly 
perverting  the  truth. 

We  suppose  it  is  not  necessary  to  repeat  here,  as  our  readers 
have  had  the  Address  recently  laid  before  them,  the  various 
lines  of  argument  which  show  the  probability  of  the  view  that 
existing  species  of  animals  have  descended  from  other  and 
simpler  forms.  If  descent  with  modification  is  the  mode  by 
which  God  ordinarily  introduces  new  species,  then  when  we  are 
inquiring  as  to  the  origin  of  any  particular  species  we  must 
attribute  it  to  the  ordinary  mode  unless  there  is  evidence  that 
that  mode  has  in  that  instance  been  set  aside.  If  now  we 
inquire  as  to  the  origin  of  man,  and  listen  to  the  replies  given 
by  the  word  of  God,  we  learn  that  man's  spiritual  nature  came 
immediately  from  God ;  that  Eve  was  made  in  a  way  wholly 
different  from  that  in  which  either  Adam  or  his  sons  were 
made.    But  now,  how  was  it  as  to  Adam's  animal  nature  ?  If 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


693 


the  word  of  God  settles  it,  then  it  is  settled  for  all  the  parties  to 
this  discussion.  But  for  reasons  given  in  the  Address,  the 
author  thinks  the  word  may  not  he  intended  to  settle  it.  And 
if  not,  then  according  to  the  principle  stated  above,  the  forma- 
tion of  man's  animal  nature  must  be  referred  to  what  is  thought 
to  be  God's  ordinary  way  of  producing  new  species,  namely, 
to  descent  with  modification.  This  may  be  too  absurd  to  laugh 
at ;  but  we  are  unable  to  see  where  the  absurdity  is. 

If  it  is  said  that  to  be  consistent  we  must  believe  that  Adam 
and  Eve  were  created  in  the  same  way,  we  are  forced  to  reply 
that  we  cannot  do  it,  and  we  must  be  content  with  inconsistency ; 
for  the  Bible  tells  us  that  they  were  not  created  in  the  same 
way — that  Adam's  body  was  created  "of  the  dust  of  the 
ground",  his  spiritual  nature  immediately  created,  and  Eve 
made  of  Adam's  rib — and  we  cannot  contradict  the  Bible  for  the 
sake  of  such  consistency.  We  believe  in  all  the  miracles  which 
the  Bible  narrates,  without  giving  up  our  belief  in  the  laws  by 
which  God  ordinarily  manifests  his  will,  but  we  do  not  believe 
in  miracles  which  the  Bible  does  not  narrate;  and  when  it 
describes  an  event  which  may  have  been  produced  by  the 
ordinary  laws,  we  believe  that  it  was  so  produced,  unless  the 
contrary  is  stated.  The  student  of  science  believes  in  the 
uniformity  of  the  operation  of  God's  laws  of  nature;  but  at  the 
same  time,  if  he  accepts  the  Bible,  he  believes  that  the  Author 
of  these  laws  can  and  does  suspend  this  uniformity  when  and 
as  he  will,  and  he  as  rigidly  believes  in  the  cases  of  suspension 
when  there  is  evidence  in  the  Bible  of  their  occurrence,  as  in 
the  cases  of  the  ordinary  operation.  The  intimations  fre- 
quently made  during  this  discussion  that  there  is  a  desire  to  set 
aside  the  evidence  in  favor  of  interruptions  in  the  law  of 
uniformity  are  wholly  without  foundation.  The  sole  aim  has 
been  to  discover  what  God  has  taught,  by  a  fair  interpretation 
of  his  word  and  his  works. 

We  have  in  former  articles  answered  objections  based  upon 
the  supposed  length  of  time  demanded  by  those  who  accept  the 
doctrine  of  derivation,  but  perhaps  it  may  not  be  out  of  place 
to  quote  the  statements  of  two  of  the  best  known  advocates  of 
the  doctrine,  (without,  however,  becoming  responsible  for  their 
opinions  in  other  respects,)  who  yet  widely  differ  with  each 


694 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


other  on  other  points.  As  we  have  previously  stated,  it  is  now 
and  has  for  a  number  of  years  been  a  common,  if  not  the  pre- 
vailing, view  amongst  evolutionists  that  variations  do  not  take 
place  by  infinitesimally  small  steps  requiring  an  immense  period 
of  time,  but  that  they  are  often  sudden  and  great.  Professor 
Huxley  said  twenty  years  ago:  "We  have  always  thought  that 
Mr.  Darwin  has  unnecessarily  hampered  himself  by  adhering 
so  strictly  to  his  favorite  'Natura  non  facit  saltum/  We 
greatly  suspect  that  she  does  make  considerable  jumps  in  the 
way  of  variation  now  and  then,  and  that  these  saltations  give 
rise  to  some  of  the  gaps  which  appear  to  exist,  in  the  series  of 
known  forms."  (Lay  Sermons,  p.  312,  Fourth  Edition.)  Pro- 
fessor Richard  Owen  says  more  positively  as  to  the  origination 
of  species  in  the  third  volume  of  his  "Anatomy  of  Vertebrates," 
p.  795,  that  natural  history  "teaches  that  the  change  would  be 
sudden  and  considerable:  it  opposes  the  idea  that  species  are 
transmitted  by  minute  and  slow  degrees."  Should  this  view  be 
adopted,  it  will  be  at  once  seen  that  the  formidable  difficulties 
arising  from  the  absence  of  connecting  links,  slowness  of 
development,  etc.,  at  once  disappear — there  never  were  any 
such  links,  and  the  change  was  not  slow. 

It  is  further  to  be  observed  that  the  sudden  change  in  ques- 
tion would  be  the  change  of  a  single  individual  and  not  of  a 
number  of  individuals;  though  in  process  of  time  a  "race" 
would  spring  from  the  changed  single  individual.  If  it  is 
insisted  that  at  least  a  pair  must  have  been  changed  so  as  to 
originate  the  new  species,  we  reply  in  the  case  of  man  we  know 
that  the  second  half  of  the  pair  was  created  from  the  first  in  an 
extra-natural  way;  so  that  the  objection  does  not  apply  in  that 
case.  But  we  may  say  further  that  in  the  actual  origination  of 
races  which  have  been  observed,  the  first  of  the  race  has  been 
one  and  not  a  pair.  We  suppose  that  our  readers  are  more 
likely  to  know  the  facts  in  the  cases  of  the  Ancon  or  otter  and 
the  Mauchamp  or  silky-haired  races  of  sheep  than  other  illus- 
trations that  might  be  used,  and  therefore  we  refer  to  them. 
The  former  originated  with  a  single  male  born  in  Massachusetts 
in  1791,  from  which  came  a  race  which  transmitted  its  peculiar- 
ities with  unvarying  uniformity  through  many  generations. 
The  Mauchamp  race  originated  in  France  in  1828,  also  with  a 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


695 


single  male  lamb,  from  which  likewise  sprang  a  race  uniform 
and  unchanging  in  character.  It  has  been  well  said  of  these: 
"If  the  Mauchamp  and  Ancon  breeds  had  originated  a  century 
or  two  ago,  we  should  have  had  no  record  of  their  birth ;  and 
many  a  naturalist  would  no  doubt  have  insisted,  especially  in 
the  case  of  the  Mauchamp  race,  that  they  had  each  descended 
from,  or  been  crossed  with,  some  unknown  aboriginal  form.''' 

We  present  these  illustrations  to  show  how  much  weight 
should  be  attached  to  the  idea  that  the  doctrine  of  derivation 
requires  the  belief  that  the  human  species  must  have  originated 
in  a  multitude  of  individuals  simultaneously,  and  not  in  a  single 
individual.  Races  or  breeds  are  groups  closely  analogous  to 
species ;  indeed,  the  most  acute  naturalist  is  often  unable  to 
distinguish  the  race  from  the  species;  hence  it  is  reasonable  to 
think  that  what  is  true  of  the  origin  of  the  one  is  also  true  of 
the  origin  of  the  other,  where  we  have  no  special  reason  to 
think  otherwise. 

The  St.  Louis  Presbyterian. 

This  journal  is  distinguished  from  all  the  others  whose  objec- 
tions we  have  noticed  or  expect  to  notice  by  the  fact  that  it 
gives  a  clear,  fair,  and  just  outline  of  the  main  points  in  the 
Address.  This  none  of  the  others  have  done,  so  that  their 
readers  have  no  means  of  discovering  the  real  character  of  that 
which  is  criticised,  and  which,  we  are  sorry  to  add,  is  so  often 
misunderstood  and  inaccurately  represented,  however  uninten- 
tionally. 

The  St.  Louis  Presbyterian,  after  fairly  stating  the  purport 
of  the  Address,  proceeds  to  express  its  decided  dissent  from 
much  that  it  contains,  and  thinks  especially  that  it  "necessitates 
a  strange  and  strained  interpretation  [of  the  Sacred  Scrip- 
tures] as,  for  example,  the  explaining  away  of  the  words,  'man 
was  formed  of  the  dust  of  the  ground.'  "  This  is  an  important 
suggestion ;  and  if  it  can  be  made  to  appear  that  the  real  mean- 
ing of  the  expression  is  "explained  away"',  we  know  that  the 
author  of  the  Address  will  at  once  abandon  his  doubt  on  the 
subject.  But  so  far  he  has  seen  nothing  to  satisfy  him  that  he 
has  erred. 

It  further  refers  to  Professor  Virchow  as  opposing  Evolu- 
tion, though  perhaps  too  confidently;  inasmuch  as  Virchow 


€96 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


says  he  "has  never  been  hostile  to  Darwinism,"  and  if  not  to 
Darwinism,  much  less  to  Evolution  as  defined  and  limited  in 
the  Address.  The  Evolution  which  Professor  Virchow 
opposes,  as  he  says,  is  the  "extreme  and  arbitrary  development 
which  it  has  received  in  Germany",  where  "it  is  presented  as 
including  the  primal  beginning  of  life,  as  well  as  the  method 
of  its  continuance." 

It  closes  by  speaking  of  the  "missing  links",  and  inquiring 
why  the  process  of  Evolution  has  "never  got  beyond  man." 
We  have  spoken  sufficiently  of  the  missing  links.  In  reply  to 
the  last  question,  all  we  can  say  is,  We  do  not  know,  and  cannot 
even  guess  at  the  reason.  But  our  ignorance  on  this  point  has 
no  tendency  to  drive  us  from  our  belief  in  the  probable  truth  of 
Evolution.  The  denial  of  its  truth  would  not  relieve  us  at  all. 
For  we  know  of  a  certainty  from  an  examination  of  the  records 
in  the  rocks  that  God  has  created  many  successive  groups  of 
species,  beginning  with  the  lower  and  gradually  adding  one 
higher  form  after  another,  up  to  the  present  time  when  he  has 
placed  on  the  earth  man  in  his  own  image  and  likeness.  This 
we  do  not  merely  believe  to  be  probable,  but  we  know  it  to  be 
true.  Now,  if  we  are  asked,  Why  has  God  not  gone  further, 
and  created  something  still  higher?  we  must  answer  equally, 
We  do  not  know;  but  again  this  ignorance  cannot  lead  us  to 
give  up  the  knowledge  we  have  gained. 

The  North  Carolina  Presbyterian. 

During  the  last  two  months  this  journal  has  had  numerous 
articles  respecting  the  Address  and  its  author,  but  they  do  not 
contain  many  objections  that  it  seems  necessary  to  answer.  Its 
first  article  calls  for  information  on  a  number  of  points  which 
do  not  affect  the  questions  under  examination.  And  in  several 
of  its  articles  it  discusses  the  exact  nature  of  Dr.  Woodrow's 
offence  in  holding  such  views  as  he  does — whether  he  is  guilty 
of  heresy  or  only  of  heterodoxy,  and  what  punishment  ought 
to  be  inflicted  upon  him,  whether  he  has  been  sufficiently  tried 
by  newspaper  to  be  now  turned  over  to  Presbytery  for  further 
trial,  etc.  It  is  hardly  to  be  expected  that  we  should  say  any- 
thing on  these  matters. 

It  objects  decidedly  to  the  suggestion  we  made  some  weeks 
ago  that  in  discussing  the  Address  argument  should  be  met  by 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


697 


argument,  and  that  "at  least  some  knowledge  of  the  subject  is 
requisite  to  those  who  engage  in  the  discussion."  It  says  touch- 
ing this  suggestion  that  "it  is  not  usual  in  warfare  that  one  side 
shall  direct  the  mode  of  attack,  or  name  the  weapons  to  be 
employed  by  the  other ;  nevertheless,  it  is  evident  that  there  are 
great  advantages  in  such  an  arrangement — to  the  party  on  the 
defence."  We  sincerely  disclaim  all  intention  of  taking  any 
unfair  advantage,  and  we  honestly  thought  that  all  would 
approve  of  our  suggesion ;  but  of  course  if  anyone  prefers  to 
employ  some  other  weapon  than  argument,  and  insists  on 
discussing  any  topic  without  "at  least  some  knowledge  of  the 
subject",  we  cannot  prevent  it. 

The  only  thing  we  find  that  requires  further  notice  is  its 
article  (July  30th)  entitled  "Evolution  Again",  in  which  it 
answers  the  question,  "What  is  Evolution?"  As  the  question 
presumably  is  asked  with  reference  to  the  existing  discussion, 
it  might  have  been  supposed  that  it  would  be  answered  by  a 
reference  to  Professor  Woodrow's  definition,  as  that  is  the  only 
kind  of  evolution  under  examination.  Yet  there  is  not  a  hint  as 
to  the  sense  in  which  the  term  Evolution  is  used  in  the  Address ; 
but  instead  there  are  a  number  of  definitions  quoted  from  the 
"Vestiges  of  Creation,"  Darwin,  and  others — no  one  of  which 
the  author  of  the  Address  would  accept;  and  therefore  they 
need  not  be  here  considered.  Is  this  the  weapon  which  is 
chosen  in  preference  to  argument  against  the  doctrines  of  the 
Address? — Sept.  n. 


The  Central  Presbyterian. 

The  following  extract  from  an  editorial  article  in  the  Central 
Presbyterian  for  Sept.  10th  shows  the  present  position  of  that 
journal : 

"We  are  certainly  very  glad  (if  there  is  no  misunderstand- 
ing) to  have  reached  this  happy  conclusion  of  a  very  disagree- 
able controversy.  There  may  be  those  who  believe  that  God 
created  man  from  materials  derived  from  the  mineral  world; 
there  may  be  others  who  believe  that  he  created  him  from 
materials  derived  from  the  vegetable  world;  there  may  be 
others  who  believe  that  he  created  him  from  materials  derived 
from  the  animal  world.    It  all  depends  on  the  more  or  less 


698 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


literal  interpretation  put  upon  the  phrase  'dust  of  the  earth'. 
A  man  may  follow  his  own  fancy  in  adopting  any  one  of  these 
views;  it  does  not  affect  his  orthodoxy." — Sept.  18. 


Objections  Answered. 
The  Southwestern  Presbyterian. 

On  the  17th  July  the  Southwestern  Presbyterian  published  an 
article  containing  several  objections  to  the  doctrines  set  forth 
in  the  Address  on  Evolution,  which  we  shall  presently  notice. 
Then  in  its  numbers  for  August  21st,  August  28th,  and  others, 
it  quotes  largely  from  Darwin's  "Descent  of  Man,"  and  goes 
quite  fully  into  the  subject  of  Darwinism  in  general — all  the 
while  evidently  under  the  impression  that  the  doctrines  of  the 
Address  and  of  Darwin's  "Descent  of  Man"  are  identical. 
Inasmuch  as  the  views  stated  in  the  Address  and  in  Darwin's 
work  are  not  only  not  the  same  but  do  not  even  resemble  each 
other,  and  inasmuch  as  the  author  of  the  Address  utterly  repudi- 
ates many  of  the  opinions  expressed  by  Darwin,  as  may  easily 
be  seen  by  a  reader  of  the  Address,  we  do  not  feel  called  on  to 
notice  further  the  later  articles  referred  to.  All  the  care  taken 
to  define  the  sense  in  which  the  term  Evolution  is  used  in  the 
Address  goes  for  nothing  with  the  Southzvestern  Presbyterian 
and  other  critics.  It  is  insisted  that  when  it  is  held  that  Evolu- 
tion is  probably  true  within  certain  defined  limits,  it  is  held  that 
anything  that  has  ever  been  called  Evolution  is  also  true.  Was 
not  Darwin  an  Evolutionist?  Are  not  Haeckel  the  atheist  and 
Spencer  the  agnostic  Evolutionists  ?  Does  it  not  clearly  follow, 
then,  that  if  you  believe  in  Evolution  at  all,  you  believe  all  that 
Darwin,  and  Haeckel,  and  Spencer  believe?  If  you  are  an 
Evolutionist,  you  must,  like  Haeckel  and  Spencer,  either  deny 
that  there  is  a  God,  or  say  that  if  there  is  you  cannot  find  it  out. 

The  unfairness  of  holding  Professor  Woodrow  responsible 
for  the  views  of  Darwin  and  other  Evolutionists  may  be  seen 
by  looking  at  a  parallel  case.  Let  us  suppose  that  one  declares 
himself  a  believer  in  Christianity,  and  carefully  explains  what 
he  means  by  the  term,  since  very  different  meanings  may  be 
attached  to  it.  Instantly  he  is  assailed  with  the  charge  that  he 
denies  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Bible,  and  places  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


699 


Church  above  it ;  that  he  believes  that  it  is  right  to  worship  the 
Virgin  Mary  and  other  saints;  that  he  holds  the  doctrine  of 
purgatory,  of  transubstantiation,  of  works  of  supererogation. 
Now  his  critic  sets  about  disproving  one  or  another  of  these 
doctrines,  and  when  he  thinks  he  has  succeeded,  congratulates 
himself  that  he  has  gained  a  complete  victory.  If  the  believer 
in  Christianity  replies  that  he  does  not  hold  those  doctrines, 
that  his  Christianity  is  wholly  different,  and  refers  to  his  own 
definitions,  he  is  told  that  that  is  of  no  use — he  has  declared 
his  belief  in  Christianity,  and  he  must  be  judged  not  by  any 
private  definition  of  his  own,  but  by  the  sense  in  which  the 
term  is  accepted  by  the  majority  of  professed  Christians.  And 
does  not  every  one  know  that  Christianity  thus  defined  means 
exactly  what  has  been  set  forth  above?  The  body  of  Chris- 
tians styling  itself  the  Church  Catholic,  Apostolic,  and  Roman, 
outnumbers  all  others  claiming  the  name,  and  has  done  so  for 
centuries ;  and  are  not  its  definitions  therefore  to  be  accepted  as 
authoritative?  Therefore  you  have  no  right  to  say  that  you 
believe  in  Christianity  at  all,  unless  you  believe  in  it  according 
to  the  standard  authoritative  catholic  definition.  And  when 
we  have  shown  that  to  be  wrong,  we  have  convicted  you  of 
being  wrong.  If  this  reasoning  is  not  conclusive,  how  can  the 
Southwestern  Presbyterian  and  other  like  critics  defend  their 
course? 

In  the  article  first  alluded  to  above  this  journal  says  (July 
17th)  : 

"1.  The  advocates  of  the  theory  admit  that  man  has  been  at 
least  six  thousand  years,  some  claim  a  hundred  thousand  years, 
on  this  earth.  Why,  then,  has  the  process  of  evolution  stopped  ? 
Were  such  a  force  in  existence  it  could  easily  be  shown  by  the 
production  out  of  man,  during  that  period,  of  some  higher 
species  of  being  than  man.    Where  is  it  ? 

"2.  No  instance  is  known  to  history,  nor  can  any  be  discov- 
ered in  the  geological  strata,  where  one  species  of  organised  life 
is  proved  to  have  been  transformed  into  one  of  a  specifically 
different  kind.  If  the  theory  be  true,  there  ought  to  be  found 
somewhere  in  the  entire  record  of  creation  at  least  one  clear, 
indisputable  illustration  of  it.    If  there  be  a  universal  law  of 


700 


DR.  JAMDS  WOODROW. 


this  sort,  produce  a  single  illustration  of  it,  by  showing  where 
the  seed  fails  to  'bring  forth  fruit  after  its  kind'. 

"3.  In  fact,  the  result  of  general  observation  is  just  the 
reverse  of  what  evolution  predicts.  The  natural  character  of 
species  is,  not  a  tendency  to  wander  and  get  lost  in  other  species, 
but  to  fixity.  And  when  from  special  circumstances  there 
seems  to  be  occasional  modification,  the  tendency,  if  left  alone, 
is  to  revert  to  the  original  type. 

"As  long  as  these  things  are  so,  evolution  rests  on  conjecture, 
and  has  not  the  slightest  right,  that  we  can  see,  to  call  for  the 
endorsement  of  revealed  truth." 

Touching  the  last  point,  it  is  to  be  said  that  Evolution  does 
not  claim  "the  slightest  right  to  call  for  the  endorsement  of 
revealed  truth."  If  the  advocates  of  any  form  of  the  theory 
have  ever  set  up  such  claim,  we  have  not  heard  of  it.  Pro- 
fessor Woodrow  certainly  does  not ;  indeed,  a  larger  part  of  his 
Address  is  devoted  to  showing  that  the  Bible  teaches  no  scien- 
tific theories,  and  no  exception  is  made  in  favor  of  Evolution. 
But  he  does  claim,  that,  whether  true  or  false,  the  Bible  does 
not  contradict  the  theory  as  regards  plants  and  animals,  and 
perhaps  not  as  to  man's  animal  nature. 

The  question  is  asked,  "Why  has  the  process  stopped  ?"  How 
is  it  known  that  it  has  stopped?  Six  thousand  and  a  hundred 
thousand  years  are  spoken  of,  as  if  men  had  during  all  that  time 
been  making  observations  on  the  variation  of  organic  forms; 
whereas  such  observations  in  any  scientific  way  are  almost 
wholly  confined  to  the  present  century.  How  then  can  it  be 
proved  that  no  new  species  have  originated  by  descent  with 
modification  since  man  was  created  ?  But  though  the  period  of 
direct  observation  has  been  so  brief,  yet  we  know,  as  was 
shown  last  week,  that  important  modifications  have  taken  place 
since  man's  creation.  In  the  case  of  man  and  of  the  animals 
associated  with  him,  we  know  that  modifications  have  occurred 
and  are  continually  occurring.  Every  one  knows  that  five  gen- 
erally recognised  and  well-marked  races  of  men,  with  numerous 
subordinate  varieties,  have  sprung  from  Adam  and  Eve;  and 
the  greatest  of  these  variations  occurred  between  the  time  of 
Noah  and  the  time  of  Abraham.  Between  these  dates  from  a 
common  stock  the  white  man  and  the  negro  had  sprung;  and 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


701 


these  two  most  diverse  races  have  not  materially  changed  since. 
Nor  do  these  races  show  any  "tendency  to  revert  to  the  original 
type."  We  do  not  know  what  the  original  type  was — we  can- 
not tell  whether  Adam  was  white,  black,  yellow,  red,  or  brown ; 
but  races  of  all  these  colors  have  descended  from  him,  and  they 
manifest  no  tendency  to  revert  to  the  original  type,  whatever  it 
may  have  been. 

It  will  no  doubt  be  said  that  all  the  variations  that  can  be 
clearly  ascertained  are  within  the  limits  of  a  species — that  varie- 
ties and  races  may  indeed  spring  up  within  species,  but  that  the 
differences  are  never  such  as  to  warrant  us  in  saying  that  new 
species  have  arisen.  This  brings  up  the  question,  "What  is  the 
difference  between  species  and  races  or  permanent  varieties?" 
Most  persons,  perhaps,  regard  this  as  a  question  easily 
answered;  but  naturalists,  who  have  devoted  their  lives  to  the 
study  of  plants  and  animals,  find  it  one  of  the  most  difficult 
that  can  be  asked.  We  shall  not  enter  upon  a  discussion  of  it, 
but  content  ourselves  with  the  following  sentences  from  Pro- 
fessor Gray,  who  has  with  minute  care  been  studying  the 
question  for  half  a  century:  "You  will  ask  if  lack  of  capacity 
to  interbreed  is  not  a  criterion  of  species.  I  must  answer,  No. 
As  a  matter  of  course  individuals  of  widely  diverse  species 
cannot  interbreed ;  those  of  related  species  not  uncommonly  do ; 
but  it  is  said  that  when  they  do  interbreed  the  hybrid  progeny 
is  sterile.  Commonly  it  is  so,  sometimes  not.  The  rule  is  not 
sufficiently  true  to  serve  as  a  test,  either  in  the  vegetable  or  in 
the  animal  kingdom.  The  only  practical  use  of  the  test  is  for 
the  discrimination  of  the  higher  grade  of  varieties  from  species. 
Now  in  fact  some  varieties  of  the  same  species  will  hardly 
interbreed  at  all ;  while  some  species  interbreed  most  freely,  and 
produce  fully  fertile  offspring.  So  the  supposed  criterion  fails 
in  the  only  cases  where  it  could  be  of  service."  .  .  .  "What 
then  is  the  substantial  difference  between  varieties  and  races? 
Just  here  is  the  turning  point  between  the  former  view  and  the 
present.  The  former  doctrine  was,  that  varieties  come  about  in 
the  course  of  nature,  but  species  not ;  that  varieties  became  what 
they  are,  but  that  species  were  originally  made  what  they  are. 
I  suppose  that,  even  before  the  day  of  Darwinism,  most  work- 
ing naturalists  were  reaching  the  conviction  that  this  distinction 


702 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


was  untenable ;  that  the  same  rule  was  applicable  to  both ;  and 
therefore  that  either  varieties  did  not  come  in  the  course  of 
nature,  or  that  species  did." 

We  conclude  what  we  wish  to  say  in  reply  to  the  objections 
quoted  above  in  the  language  of  the  same  distinguished  natural- 
ist in  correcting  a  common  impression  that  "Evolution  predi- 
cates actual  or  necessary  variation  of  all  existing  species,  and 
counts  that  the  variation  must  be  in  some  definite  ratio  to  the 
time."    "That,"  says  he,  "is  not  the  idea,  nor  the  fact." 

The  Southwestern  Presbyterian  next  proceeds  to  speak  very 
facetiously  of  "that  primal  cell,  or  form,  out  of  which  all  living 
things  come."  We  do  not  know  what  the  first  immediately 
created  forms  were,  nor  is  there  any  suggestion  as  to  that  point 
in  the  Address.  But  if  they  were  cells,  there  would  be  nothing 
very  ridiculous  about  it.  It  might  seriously  speak  of  them  as 
most  wonderful.    It  asks : 

"Where  did  the  sagacity  of  the  elephant,  the  cunning  of  the 
fox,  or  the  wisdom  of  the  ant  come  from?  The  plain  answer 
is,  from  our  ever-to-be-admired  cell.  Habits,  instincts,  intelli- 
gence, all  that  the  whole  living  world  in  every  department  of 
its  being  needs." 

This  is  supposed  to  be  a  reductio  ad  absurdum.  And  yet 
every  one  who  has  studied  natural  history  knows  that  it  has 
pleased  God  to  begin  each  individual  plant  and  animal  with 
just  such  a  cell  as  is  thought  by  the  Southwestern  Presbyterian 
to  be  so  funny.    The  God-revering  student  would  not  say, 

"Not  only  does  this  wonderful  cell  produce  forms — it  must 
produce  the  dispositions,  feelings,  capacities,  and  habits  and 
intelligence  by  which  they  carry  on  their  individual  and  social 
life." 

It  is  not  the  cell  that  produces  all  these  things ;  but  the  "plain 
answer"  he  would  give  is  that  all  these  things  came  from  God 
through  his  "ever-to-be-admired  cell".  It  exclaims,  "Tell  us 
something  about  that  cell,  for  if  this  be  true,  it  is  a  more  won- 
derful thing  than  creation  itself!"  It  is  wonderful  indeed. 
Instead  of  telling  anything  about  it  ourselves,  we  shall  let  Prof. 
Drummond  answer : 

"If  a  botanist  be  asked  the  difference  between  an  oak,  a 
palm-tree,  and  a  lichen,  he  will  declare  that  they  are  separated 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


703 


from  one  another  by  the  broadest  line  known  to  classification. 
Without  taking  into  account  the  outward  differences  of  size  and 
form,  the  variety  of  flower  and  fruit,  the  peculiarities  of  leaf 
and  branch,  he  sees  even  in  their  general  architecture  types  of 
structure  as  distinct  as  Xorman.  Gothic,  and  Egyptian.  But  if 
the  first  young  germs  of  these  three  plants  are  placed  before 
him  and  he  is  called  upon  to  define  the  difference,  he  finds  it 
impossible.  He  cannot  even  say  which  is  which.  Examined 
under  the  highest  powers  of  the  microscope  they  yield  no  clue. 
Analysed  by  the  chemist  with  all  the  appliances  of  his  labora- 
tory they  keep  their  secret. 

"The  same  experiment  can  be  tried  with  the  embryos  of 
animals.  Take  the  ovule  of  the  worm,  the  eagle,  the  elephant, 
and  of  man  himself.  Let  the  most  skilled  observer  apply  the 
most  searching  tests  to  distinguish  one  from  the  other  and  he 
will  fail.  But  there  is  something  more  surprising  still.  Com- 
pare next  the  two  sets  of  germs,  the  vegetable  and  the  animal. 
And  there  is  still  no  shade  of  difference.  Oak  and  palm,  worm 
and  man,  all  start  in  life  together.  No  matter  into  what 
strangely  different  forms  they  may  afterwards  develop,  no 
matter  whether  they  are  to  live  on  sea  or  land,  creep  or  fly, 
swim  or  walk,  think  or  vegetate,  in  the  embryo  as  it  first  meets 
the  eye  of  Science  they  are  indistinguishable.  The  apple  which 
fell  in  Newton's  garden,  Newton's  dog  Diamond,  and  Newton 
himself,  began  life  at  the  same  point." 

The  Southwestern  Presbyterian  next  condemns  the  views  set 
forth  in  the  Address  as  to  man  as  "illogical  and  inconsistent", 
and  commends  the  logic  and  consistency  of  the  "unchristian 
evolutionist"  who  "assures  us  that  evolution  provides  both 
intellect  and  morality;  and,  carrying  out  the  theory  to  its  logical 
result,  declares  that  there  is  no  need  of  God ;  the  first  cell 
provides  everything!" 

We  answered  this  objection  two  weeks  ago,  and  need  add  but 
little  here.  The  question  is  not  what  God  could  or  should  have 
done,  but  what  he  did  do.  Doubtless  he  could  have  done  what 
is  here  demanded,  but  we  learn  from  his  works  and  his  word 
that  he  did  not ;  he  chose  to  vary  his  modes  of  procedure.  So. 
doubtless,  he  might  have  so  ordered  that  there  would  have  been 
abundance  of  wine  at  the  marriage  at  Cana  all  the  fruit  of  the 


704 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


grape ;  but  he  did  not  so  order,  and  no  love  of  supposed  logic 
or  consistency  will  drive  us  to  believe  that  because  he  created 
in  one  way  the  first  part  of  the  wine  used,  he  did  not  and  could 
not  create  in  another  way  that  which  was  last  used.  In  like 
manner,  if  the  Bible  teaches  that  Adam's  animal  nature  was 
formed  from  inorganic  dust,  we  would  not  find  the  least  diffi- 
culty in  believing  it.  But,  since  we  regard  this  as  doubtful, 
just  so  far  must  we  refer  that  animal  nature  to  God's  ordinary 
mode  of  operation,  whatever  that  may  be. 

It  next  quotes  from  the  Address  the  remark  that  the  "reasons 
urged  against  it  [evolution  in  certain  respects]  are  of  little 
weight."  It  replies  to  this  that  the  author  of  the  Address  "will 
perhaps  be  surprised  to  see  how  many  conscientious  and  well- 
informed  men  entertain  just  the  opposite  opinion,"  and  goes  on 
to  illustrate  by  referring  to  the  journals  of  our  Church.  Now 
we  cannot  sit  in  judgment  on  the  competency  of  the  editors  of 
these  journals  to  act  as  judges,  or  on  the  question  of  their 
knowledge  of  the  subjects  involved ;  but  we  would  call  attention 
to  the  fact  that  the  word  used  is  "reasons"  not  "persons."  We 
have  no  doubt  that  the  vast  majority  of  persons  in  the  world 
would  pronounce  Christianity  to  be  false ;  we  know  that  multi- 
tudes of  "conscientious  and  well-informed  men"  who  profess 
to  be  Christians  reject  the  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
and  that  multitudes  more  reject  the  doctrines  of  Calvinism ;  but 
no  amount  of  vote-counting  can  affect  the  truth. 

The  last  objection  urged  by  the  Southwestern  Presbyterian  is 
that  the  "essence  of  the  theory  of  evolution  is  Materialism." 
When  we  first  read  this  statement,  we  were  amazed.  But  then 
we  remembered  that  this  is  an  old  stock  objection  to  every  law 
or  mode  of  divine  operation  that  is  discovered.  Whenever  it  is 
ascertained  that  God  produces  certain  effects  according  to  a 
certain  regular  method,  the  cry  is  raised  that  the  existence  and 
power  of  God  are  denied,  and  that  it  is  claimed  that  the  method 
produces  the  effects  or  that  they  produce  themselves.  So  it 
was  even  when  the  law  of  gravitation  was  discovered  and  estab- 
lished by  Newton.  Even  so  great  a  thinker  as  Leibnitz  fell 
into  this  error.  But  it  is  surprising  that  with  the  discovery  of 
each  one  of  God's  laws,  it  should  be  necessary  to  pass  through 
the  same  experience. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


705 


Professor  Diman  says  on  this  point :  "As  a  theory  simply  to 
account  for  natural  phenomena,  evolution  may  be  likened  to 
gravitation.  Before  Newton's  law  of  gravitation  was  under- 
stood, it  was  met  with  theological  objections.  To  some  devout 
men  it  seemed  to  substitute  the  action  of  a  physical  force  for 
the  direct  action  of  Deity.  It  removed  God  from  the  world  by 
the  hypothesis  of  constant  and  omnipresent  law.  But  no  one 
would  now  for  a  moment  claim  that  a  universe  governed  by 
laws  was  a  universe  without  God ;  on  the  contrary,  the  presence 
and  uniform  operation  of  law  is  one  of  the  strongest  proofs 
of  the  divine  existence  to  which  natural  theology  makes  her 
appeal.  In  the  same  way,  to  some,  evolution  seemed,  at  first 
sight,  inextricably  bound  up  with  atheism.  To  explain  the 
complex  from  the  simpler  forms  of  being  wore,  at  first  sight, 
the  aspect  of  a  materialistic  hypothesis.  But  a  little  considera- 
tion must  convince  any  candid  mind  that  while  evolution 
pushes  the  first  cause  a  little  further  back,  it  does  not  lessen,  in 
the  least,  the  intellectual  necessity  which  forces  the  conception 
of  a  first  cause  upon  the  mind.  And  in  furnishing  us  with  a 
hypothesis  of  the  method  of  creation,  it  does  not  in  the  least 
account  for  the  method  as  an  actual  fact." 

We  may  conclude  what  we  have  to  say  on  this  point  by  com- 
paring a  definition  of  Materialism  with  the  doctrine  of 
Evolution  as  presented  by  Professor  Woodrow.  Materialism 
is  the  "theory  that  the  material  universe  is  self-existent  and 
self-directed,  and  that  the  functions  of  life,  sensation,  and 
thought,  arise  out  of  modifications  of  matter."  On  the  other 
hand,  in  the  Address  Evolution  is  referred  to  as  one  of  "the 
laws  by  which  God  is  now  governing  his  material  works" ;  as 
the  method  by  which  "it  pleased  God,  the  Almighty  Creator,  to 
create  present  and  intermediate  past  organic  forms" ;  as  "in 
accordance  with  laws  which  God  has  ordained  and  executes" ; 
and  finally  as  "God's  plan  of  creation".  Is  any  argument 
needed  to  show  that  this  is  not  Materialism,  and  that  it  has  no 
tendency  towards  it? 

In  its  number  for  last  week  the  Southwestern  Presbyterian 
continues  its  discussion  of  the  question,  "Is  Darwinism 
Science?"    As  intimated  above,  we  are  not  particularly  inter- 


45 — w 


706 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


ested  in  this  question ;  for  much  that  Darwin  taught  we  cannot 
believe.  But  we  must  notice  its  roll-call,  by  which  it  under- 
takes to  prove  that  the  question  should  be  answered  in  the 
negative.  We  shall  say  nothing  as  to  the  argument  that 
because  unhappily  Darwin  was  not  a  Christian,  therefore 
Evolution  is  a  dangerous  doctrine.  But  the  Rev.  Dr.  Boggs 
had  said  that  "Prof.  Dawson,  of  Montreal,  is  the  only  naturalist 
of  extensive  reputation  of  whom  I  can  learn  in  America  as 
continuing  to  reject  the  Evolution  hypothesis,  and  he  only  as  to 
the  organic  kingdom."  It  is  well  known  to  all  who  have 
extensive  acquaintance  amongst  the  working  naturalists  of  the 
day  that  Dr.  Boggs's  statement  is  strictly  correct,  and  that  an 
overwhelming  majority  of  naturalists  are  evolutionists.  But 
the  Southwestern  Presbyterian  attempts  to  disprove  it  by 
setting  forth  a  grand  array  of  the  following  distinguished 
naturalists:  Dawson,  Agassiz,  Guyot,  McCosh,  Tayler  Lewis, 
Mark  Hopkins,  N.  A.  Porter,  Rudolph  Schmid,  Clerk  Maxwell, 
Dr.  Elam,  Frank  Buckland,  Max  Muller,  Sir  William  Thom- 
son— thirteen  in  all.  Not  to  speak  of  the  fact  that  Dr.  Boggs 
specified  American  naturalists  and  that  six  of  these  are  not 
Americans,  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  until  now  no  one  has  ever 
claimed  that  Lewis,  Hopkins,  Porter,  Schmid,  Maxwell, 
Muller,  or  Thomson  were  naturalists.  Lewis  was  a  linguist 
and  general  scholar;  Hopkins  and  Porter  are  metaphysicians; 
Schmid  is  a  theological  professor;  Maxwell  (deceased)  and 
Thomson  are  greatly  distinguished  as  mathematicians  and 
physicists,  but  not  at  all  as  naturalists ;  Muller  is  a  philologist. 
Agassiz  is  rightly  referred  to — he  was  a  naturalist  of  the 
highest  genius,  and  a  stout  opponent  of  Evolution  in  every 
form,  so  much  so  that  he  insisted  that  all  the  varieties  of  the 
human  family  were  independently  created,  and  that  the  unity 
of  man  is  a  fancy  without  foundation.  Referring  to  this 
diversity  of  views,  Professor  Gray  said  four  years  since:  "Half 
a  century  ago,  when  I  began  to  read  scientific  books  and  jour- 
nals, the  commonly  received  doctrine  was,  that  the  earth  had 
been  completely  depopulated  and  repopulated  over  and  over, 
each  time  with  a  distinct  population ;  and  that  the  species  which 
now,  along  with  man,  occupy  the  present  surface  of  the  earth 
belong  to  an  ultimate  and  independent  creation,  having  an  ideal 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


707 


but  no  genealogical  connexion  with  those  that  preceded.  This 
view,  as  a  rounded  whole  and  in  all  its  essential  elements,  has 
very  recently  disappeared  from  science.  It  died  a  royal  death 
with  Agassis,  who  maintained  it  with  all  his  great  ability,  as 
long  as  it  was  tenable.  I  am  not  aware  that  it  now  has  any 
scientific  upholder." 

But  to  continue  the  examination  of  the  list  of  the  thirteen. 
Dr.  McCosh  is  counted  as  an  anti-evolutionist !  Taylor  Lewis, 
speaking  in  1855,  as  an  interpreter  of  Scripture,  says :  "We  are 
not  much  concerned  about  the  mode  of  the  production  of  his 
(man's)  material  or  merely  physical  organisation.  In  regard 
to  this  there  is  nothing  in  the  expressions  'He  made',  or  'He 
created  him',  or  'He  made  him  from  the  earth',  which  is  at  war 
with  the  idea  of  growth,  or  development,  during  either  a  longer 
or  shorter  period.  .  .  .  We  can  merely  say  the  Bible  seems  to 
imply  an  immediate  formation,  even  of  the  material  nature,  as 
though  man  were  altogether  a  new  thing  wholly  severed  from 
all  physical  connexion  with  any  previous  states  of  being;  still 
the  language  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  other  supposition." 
.  .  .  "The  declarations,  'He  created,'  'He  made,'  'He  formed 
of  the  earth,'  might,  as  we  have  seen,  be  interpreted  in  perfect 
consistency  with  a  long  as  well  as  with  a  short,  a  mediate  as 
well  as  with  an  immediate  process,  an  instantaneous  production 
as  well  as  a  slow  natural  growth  through  the  operation  of 
natural  law." 

An  examination  of  others  of  the  thirteen  would  yield  similar 
results,  but  it  cannot  be  necessary  to  say  more  on  this  point. 
But  we  must  call  attention  to  the  effort  of  the  Southwestern 
Presbyterian  to  press  even  Professor  Gray  himself  into  service 
as  a  very  doubtful  hesitating  witness  in  favor  of  Evolution. 
It  quotes  the  following  sentence  from  his  pen : 

"In  our  opinion,  it  is  far  easier  to  vindicate  a  theistic  char- 
acter for  the  derivative  theory,  than  to  establish  the  theory 
itself  upon  adequate  scientific  evidence." 

But  it  fails  to  state  the  fact  that  this  sentence  is  taken  from 
a  review  of  Darwin's  Origin  of  Species  in  March,  1860,  zvritten 
before  Professor  Gray  had  accepted  the  doctrine  of  Evolution. 
By  adopting  the  same  course  it  could  triumphantly  disprove 
Dr.  Boggs's  statement:  by  quoting  from  the  writings  of  all  the 


708 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


most  distinguished  naturalists  of  twenty-five  years  ago,  it  could 
easily  show  that  there  was  then  as  overwhelming  a  majority 
against  Evolution  as  there  now  is  in  favor  of  it.  And  it  could 
do  this  without  being  under  the  necessity  of  including  amongst 
its  naturalists,  metaphysicians,  philologists,  mathematicians, 
physicists,  and  theologians. — Sept.  18. 


Inaugural  Address. 

In  accordance  with  the  suggestion  of  several  friends  we 
to-day  begin  the  republication  of  the  Address  delivered  by 
Professor  Woodrow  when  he  was  inaugurated  Perkins  Profes- 
sor in  1861.  The  views  then  presented  have  ever  since  guided 
the  course  of  instruction  given. — Sept.  25. 


The  Evolution  Discussion. 

We  have  now  answered  all  the  objections  urged  by  the 
journals  of  our  Church  against  the  views  set  forth  in  Professor 
Woodrow's  Address  on  Evolution,  within  the  limits  described 
in  the  statement  we  made  four  weeks  ago.  The  same  objec- 
tions have  been  repeated  over  and  over,  but  it  is  hardly  neces- 
sary to  repeat  the  answers.  The  Southwestern  Presbyterian 
continues  to  fight  earnestly  against  Darwin's  views ;  but  as  we 
have  before  stated,  those  are  not  at  all  Professor  Woodrow's 
views,  and  therefore  we  are  in  no  way  interested  in  that  fight. 
So  the  Central  Presbyterian  has  numerous  articles  on  the 
subject — it  had  five  editorial  articles  touching  the  matter  in  its 
number  for  September  10th,  and  ten  in  that  for  September 
17th — but  they  call  for  no  reply.  It  professes  to  find  difficulty 
in  understanding  our  views,  and  to  think  that  we  are  changing 
from  week  to  week ;  but  we  have  spoken  as  clearly  as  we  know 
how  to  do,  and  we  are  perfectly  sure  that  our  views  have  not 
undergone  the  slightest  change.  The  first  of  its  editorial  series 
last  week  consists  of  objections  to  Professor  Dana's  views 
which  it  had  previously  quoted  with  approbation;  the  last  of 
the  series  we  give  in  full : 

"They  do  not  speak  of  shingling  a  house  now — they  call  it 
the  evolution  of  the  roof.  When  the  cat  has  kittens,  they  call 
it  'descent  with  modification.'  " 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


709 


The  distinguished  New  Haven  Professor  can  defend  himself 
if  he  wishes  to  do  so ;  to  the  "roof"  and  "kitten"  argument  we 
confess  our  inability  to  reply. 

To  the  Northern  journals,  both  Presbyterian  and  of  other 
denominations,  and  secular,  we  cannot  undertake  to  offer  any 
answer.  To  do  so  would  require  all  our  pages  for  many  weeks. 
But  fortunately  it  is  not  a  matter  of  any  importance,  for  we 
have  not  seen  an  objection  of  the  least  consequence  which  we 
have  not  answered  as  found  in  our  Southern  journals.  Some 
of  the  journals  in  the  North  have  spoken  of  the  doctrines  of 
the  Address  with  approval ;  others,  while  dissenting  and  oppos- 
ing on  certain  points,  have  done  so  with  courtesy  and  fairness ; 
while  still  others  have  indulged  in  personal  abuse,  have  misre- 
presented the  views  taught,  and  have  assailed  them  with 
scorning  ridicule.  One  of  them  after  condemning  the  views 
as  dangerous,  afterwards  confessed  that  it  had  not  read  the 
Address!  And  it  is  plain  that  others  that  have  uttered  the 
same  condemnation  ought  to  make  the  same  confession.  The 
following  article  is  from  the  New  York  Evangelist  of  last 
week  : 

A  Hue  and  Cry  Suddenly  Hushed. 

The  Southern  Presbyterian  Church  has  been  greatly  agitated 
for  some  weeks  by  a  discussion  over  an  article  by  Dr.  Woodrow 
of  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Columbia,  S.  C,  in  the  last 
number  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Reznew.  Dr.  Woodrow 
advocates  the  scientific  doctrine  of  Evolution  so  far  as  the 
human  body  is  concerned.  This  advocacy  of  a  mild  form  of 
the  Evolution  hypothesis  created  quite  a  sensation  in  the  ultra- 
conservative  South,  and  the  excitement  was  communicated  to 
several  of  our  Northern  Presbyterian  newspapers  with  the  like 
ultra-conservative  tendencies.  We  have  refrained  from  the 
discussion  partly  because  we  did  not  care  to  intrude  upon  the 
affairs  of  a  sister  denomination,  at  least  until  the  lines  of  battle 
were  clearly  drawn,  and  partly  because  it  seemed  to  us  that 
the  position  of  Dr.  Woodrow  himself  was  not  sufficiently  defi- 
nite, and  that  the  whole  tumult  might  after  all  go  off  in  smoke. 

We  are  glad  to  announce  to  our  readers  that  the  discussion 
seems  about  to  come  to  an  end.  The  whole  debate  seems  to 
have  arisen,  as  so  many  have  arisen  before  it,  from  misunder- 
standing. The  Central  Presbyterian  of  September  10th,  at  the 
close  of  a  long  editorial,  tells  us : 

"Dana  and  Dr.  Woodrow  thus  agreeing,  the  only  difference 
between  Dr.  Woodrow,  as  at  present  understood,  and  the  tradi- 


710 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


tional  interpretation  put  upon  Genesis,  in  respect  to  the 
creation  of  man,  is  that  the  old  interpreters  of  the  Bible  gen- 
erally regarded  the  'dust'  out  of  which  Adam  was  created  as 
'inorganic'  or  literal  dust,  while  Dr.  Woodrow  regards  it  as 
'organic  dust'. 

"We  are  certainly  very  glad  (if  there  is  no  misunderstand- 
ing) to  have  reached  this  happy  conclusion  of  a  very  disagree- 
able controversy.  There  may  be  those  who  believe  that  God 
created  man  from  materials  derived  from  the  mineral  world ; 
there  may  be  others  who  believe  that  he  created  him  from 
materials  derived  from  the  vegetable  world ;  there  may  be  others 
who  believe  that  he  created  him  from  materials  derived  from 
the  animal  world.  It  all  depends  on  the  more  or  less  literal 
interpretation  put  upon  the  phrase  'dust  of  the  earth.'  A  man 
may  follow  his  own  fancy  in  adopting  any  one  of  these  views ; 
it  does  not  affect  his  orthodoxy." 

But  if  this  be  the  case,  who  is  responsible  for  these  weeks  of 
agitation,  with  the  charges  of  heresy  so  freely  made  and  indus- 
triously spread  throughout  the  country  against  a  professor  (the 
senior  professor,  we  believe)  of  one  of  the  Theological  Semi- 
naries of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  South?  Must  not 
these  over-zealous  newspapers  take  the  blame  for  rushing  into 
the  discussion  without  cause?  We  know  that  the  very  word 
Evolution  is  a  bug-bear  to  many,  who  do  not  always  understand 
what  is  meant  by  it  ;  for  within  the  general  theory  there  are 
several  distinct  hypotheses.  Scientific  men  who  reject  Evolu- 
tion, such  as  Sir  William  Thomson  and  the  late  Professor 
Agassiz,  do  so  not  because  they  are  afraid  of  its  bearing  upon 
religious  opinions,  but  simply  because  it  does  not  appear  to 
them  supported  by  sufficient  proof.  On  the  other  hand,  some 
of  the  ablest  divines  as  well  as  scientists  of  our  day,  have 
adopted  the  theory  of  Evolution  in  part,  and  feel  in  no  wise 
embarrassed  by  it,  as  if  it  shook  the  foundations  of  their  reli- 
gious belief.  Is  it  not  then  the  part  of  wisdom,  instead  of 
going  into  a  panic  at  such  a  suggestion,  to  leave  all  fair-minded 
thinkers  to  study  the  subject  and  think  for  themselves?  It  was 
therefore  an  offence  against  reason  and  charity,  to  raise  a  hue 
and  cry  against  an  able  and  useful  professor  because  he  had 
ventured  to  express  such  an  opinion,  and  to  class  him  at  once 
with  infidels,  agnostics,  and  heretics ! 

It  is  bad  enough  for  the  secular  press  to  be  ever  at  work 
attacking  the  opinions  and  characters  of  our  public  men.  It  is 
still  worse  for  the  religious  press  to  make  theological  professors 
and  leading  clergymen  the  targets  for  their  arrows  whenever  it 
suits  their  convenience.  It  has  been  made  evident  in  more  than 
one  instance  in  recent  times,  that  sheer  ignorance  on  the  part  of 
the  critic  or  assailant  was  the  bottom  fact  in  the  charge  of 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


711 


heresy  or  unsoundness,  which  was  freely  made  against  divines 
greatly  superior  to  the  critic  in  wisdom  and  in  character. 

We  have  no  sympathy  with  this  heresy-hunting  spirit  in  the 
North  or  in  the  South.  The  old  Adam  in  us  at  first  was 
inclined  to  reflect:  "The  Southern  Presbyterian  journals  have 
been  free  with  their  charges  of  unsoundness  in  the  Northern 
Church.  They  now  have  enough  to  do  at  home."  But  our 
better  nature  soon  led  us  to  regret  that  so  much  Christian  zeal 
and  energy  was  not  only  wasted,  but  really  used  against  an 
excellent  Christian  scholar.  We  rejoice  in  the  words  of  the 
Central  Presbyterian,  and  hope  that  this  will  be  the  end  of  it. 

It  is  probably  a  mistake  on  the  part  of  the  New  York  Evan- 
gelist to  suppose  that  the  "Hue  and  Cry"  is  so  nearly  "hushed." 
But  if  the  discussion  is  to  continue,  we  would  be  glad  to  see  it 
take  a  more  profitable  direction.  As  most  of  the  objections 
which  we  felt  obliged  to  answer  were  directed  against  the 
hypothesis  of  Evolution,  our  answers  were  necessarily  on  the 
same  subject.  But  the  question  of  the  truth  of  Evolution  is  of 
wholly  subordinate  importance.  As  was  stated  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Address,  "On  the  present  occasion  it  is  doubtless 
the  relations  between  science,  or  that  which  claims  to  be  science, 
and  the  Bible,  and  not  science  itself,  that  should  receive  our 
attention."  Accordingly,  while  an  outline  of  the  reasons  in 
favor  of  Evolution  was  presented,  and  the  opinion  expressed 
that  it  was  probably  true  as  there  limited  and  defined,  the 
greater  part  of  the  Address  was  devoted  to  pointing  out  the 
relations  of  science  and  the  Bible ;  that  since  the  Bible  does  not 
teach  geography,  astronomy,  or  geology,  it  makes  no  difference, 
so  far  as  our  belief  of  the  Bible  is  concerned,  whether  the 
theories  of  geography,  astronomy,  and  geology,  which  we  hold, 
are  true  or  false;  and  in  like  manner,  since  the  Bible  does  not 
teach  the  method  of  creation,  except  in  the  particulars  pointed 
out,  it  makes  no  difference  whether  the  theory  which  we  hold 
as  to  the  method  of  creation  is  true  or  false. 

The  important  question  then  is,  Does  the  theory  of  Evolu- 
tion, as  limited  and  defined  in  the  Address,  contradict  the  Bible? 
If  it  does  not,  then  it  makes  no  difference,  so  far  as  our  belief 
in  the  Bible  is  concerned,  whether  the  theory  is  true  or  false. 
If  it  does,  then  according  to  the  teachings  of  the  Address,  it 
must  be  rejected. 


712 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


It  may  be  worth  while  to  republish  here  the  exact  words 
used : 

"In  the  Bible  it  is  said  that  God  created ;  but,  so  far  as  I  can 
see,  it  is  not  said  how  he  created.  We  are  told  nothing  that 
contradicts  the  supposition,  for  example,  that,  in  creating  our 
earth  and  the  solar  system  of  which  it  forms  a  part,  he  brought 
the  whole  into  existence  very  much  in  the  condition  in  which 
we  now  see  the  several  parts;  or,  on  the  other  hand,  that  he 
proceeded  by  the  steps  indicated  in  what  is  called  the  nebular 
hypothesis.  Just  as  the  contrary  beliefs  of  Calvin  and  our- 
selves touching  the  centre  of  the  solar  system  fail  to  contradict 
a  single  word  in  the  Bible,  so  the  contrary  beliefs  of  those  who 
accept  and  those  who  reject  the  nebular  hypothesis  fail  to 
contradict  a  single  word  of  the  Bible. 

"I  regard  the  same  statements  as  true  when  made  respecting 
the  origin  of  the  almost  numberless  species  of  organic  beings 
which  now  exist  and  which  have  existed  in  the  past.  In  the 
Bible  I  find  nothing  that  contradicts  the  belief  that  God  immedi- 
ately brought  into  existence  each  form  independently;  or  that 
contradicts  the  contrary  belief  that,  having  originated  one  or  a 
few  forms,  he  caused  all  the  others  to  spring  from  these  in 
accordance  with  laws  which  he  ordained  and  makes  operative." 

This  is  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Address.  All  who 
receive  it  as  true  are  wholly  indifferent,  as  Bible  believers,  as  to 
what  may  have  been  the  particular  mode  of  originating  species. 
—Sept.  25. 


Uselessness  of  Further  Discussion. 

However  useful  debate  may  generally  be  as  an  aid  in  ascer- 
taining the  truth,  we  are  inclined  to  think  that  it  is  useless  to 
continue  the  discussion  of  evolution  with  some  of  the  journals 
whose  objections  to  Professor  Woodrow's  views  we  have 
recently  been  answering.  It  is  clear  that  we  cannot  understand 
each  other ;  and  when  this  is  the  case,  debating  becomes  wrang- 
ling, and  in  that  we  are  not  willing  to  engage.  And  there  are 
other  reasons  why  discussion  with  the  journals  referred  to  must 
be  unprofitable,  which  will  presently  be  pointed  out. 

Notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  said,  the  Southwestern 
Presbyterian  still  week  after  week  insists  that  Evolution  as 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


713 


defined  in  Professor  Woodrow's  Address  is  Darwinism.  It 
proves  it  in  this  way:  Professor  Woodrow's  definition  is  that 
it  is  "descent  with  modification,"  Darwinism  also  involves 
"descent  with  modification,"  therefore  they  are  the  same 
throughout.  With  equal  propriety  it  would  be  said:  Chris- 
tianity, as  defined  by  Presbyterians,  involves  the  doctrines  of  the 
Trinity,  the  divinity  and  humanity  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  others  ; 
so  does  Roman  Catholicism;  therefore  they  are  the  same 
throughout.  If  that  journal  should  ever  find  out  the  difference, 
and  should  show  that  Evolution  as  defined  in  the  Address  is 
untenable,  we  will  give  it  up  at  once.  But  as  we  have  before 
said,  we  are  not  interested  in  its  assaults  on  Darwinism;  they 
do  not  in  the  least  affect  our  position. 

Besides  this  misconception,  and  in  connexion  with  it,  we  have 
to  point  out  the  fact  that  it  does  not  always  quote  accurately, 
where  accuracy  is  of  vital  importance.  In  criticising  the 
Address  the  Southwestern  Presbyterian  asserted  that  the 
"essence  of  the  theory  of  Evolution  is  Materialism."  Four 
weeks  ago  we  showed  that  this  assertion  has  no  foundation. 
In  replying  to  our  answer,  it  quotes  itself  as  having  said,  the 
"essence  of  Darwinian  Evolution  is  Materialism."  But  this  is 
a  wholly  different  proposition.  It  had  not  spoken  of  Darzvinian 
evolution;  it  was  criticising  the  Evolution  defined  in  the 
Address,  and  such  misquotation  is  inexcusable. 

Perhaps  we  need  hardly  give  a  formal  reason  for  not  replying 
to  a  correspondent  of  the  Southwestern  Presbyterian  (an  intel- 
ligent gentleman,  we  believe,  in  his  profession)  who  closes  an 
article  demolishing  theistic  Evolutionists  with  three  unanswer- 
able questions.  He  says :  "I  have  only  three  questions  to  ask 
these  theistic  Evolutionists:  ...  2d.  Why  is  the  pelvis  only 
found  in  man?"  Now,  is  it  possible  that  the  writer  has  the 
remotest  conception  of  what  the  pelvis  is?  Why  did  he  not 
ask,  Why  is  the  foot,  or  the  head,  or  the  leg,  only  found  in 
man?  This  question  would  have  been  just  as  effective  in 
crushing  Evolution;  it  would  have  been  just  as  applicable,  and 
every  way  as  true  and  as  proper.  Was  not  the  suggestion 
needed  which  we  ventured  to  make  some  time  ago,  that  "at 
least  some  knowledge  of  the  subject  is  requisite  to  those  who 
engage  in  the  discussion"  ?    Before  this  correspondent  comes  to 


714 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


sit  in  judgment  on  any  question  connected  with  the  matter,  may 
we  not  ask  him  to  spend  a  few  seconds  in  finding  out  what  a 
pelvis  is,  and  a  few  minutes  in  finding  out  whether  after  all  it 
is  only  found  in  man? 

Coming  back  to  its  editorial  articles,  we  next  notice  as  a 
reason  for  regarding  as  unprofitable  a  continuation  of  the 
debate  the  misunderstanding  and  consequent  misrepresentation 
of  the  views  of  various  writers  referred  to.  One  instance  of 
this  is  that  it  represents  Mr.  Mivart  as  opposing  Evolution,  and 
to  prove  it  quotes  from  him  a  passage  in  which  he  strongly 
condemns  "the  Darwinian  doctrine."  This  passage  is  quoted 
from  an  author  whose  chief  work  (Genesis  of  Species)  closes 
with  the  following  statement  of  its  design : 

"The  aim  has  been  to  support  the  doctrine  that  these  species 
have  been  evolved  by  ordinary  natural  laws  (for  the  most  part 
unknown),  aided  by  the  subordinate  action  of  'Natural  Selec- 
tion', and  at  the  same  time  to  remind  some  readers  that  there  is 
and  can  be  absolutely  nothing  in  physical  science  which  forbids 
them  to  regard  those  natural  laws  as  acting  with  the  Divine 
concurrence  and  in  obedience  to  a  creative  fiat  originally 
imposed  on  the  primeval  cosmos,  'in  the  beginning,'  by  its  Crea- 
tor, its  Upholder,  and  its  Lord." 

On  page  275,  he  had  declared  his  belief 

"That  from  time  to  time  new  species  are  manifested  by  ordi- 
nary generation,  just  as  Pavo  nigripennis  appeared  suddenly, 
these  new  forms  not  being  monstrosities  but  harmonious  self- 
consistent  wholes.  .  .  .  That  these  'jumps'  are  considerable 
in  comparison  with  the  minute  variations  of  'Natural  Selection' 
— are  in  fact  sensible  steps,  such  as  discriminate  species  from 
species." 

And  yet  the  Southzvestern  Presbyterian  would  have  Mr. 
Mivart  figure  as  an  opponent  of  Evolution ! 

Perhaps  a  still  more  remarkable  example  of  its  misunder- 
standing facts  is  contained  in  its  editorial  article  of  last  week  in 
which  it  quotes  the  late  Professor  Guyot  as  opposing  "Evolu- 
tion as  held  at  Columbia."  Let  our  readers  judge  for  them- 
selves. We  give  its  entire  quotation,  and  at  the  same  time 
quotations  from  Professor  Woodrow's  Address  on  the  same 
points. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


715 


Prof.  Guyot  says: 

"Before  we  leave  this  grand  history  of  the  creation,  let  us 
offer  a  few  remarks  on  the  relation  that  it  holds  to  Evolution, 
the  favorite  doctrine  of  the  day. 

"Though  the  narrative  is,  on  the  whole,  singularly  non-com- 
mittal in  regard  to  any  specific  scientific  doctrine,  there  are  a 
few  points  on  which  it  is  positive.    It  teaches  that : 

"1.  The  primordial  creation  of  matter,  the  creation  of  the 
system  of  life,  and  the  creation  of  man,  are  three  distinct  crea- 
tions. 

"2.  They  are  not  simultaneous,  but  successive. 

"3.  God's  action  in  the  creation  is  constant. 

"As  we  have  already  observed,  each  of  these  great  orders  of 
things  is  introduced  by  the  word  bar  a,  so  that  Moses  seemed  to 
distinguish  the  three  great  groups  of  phenomena  as  distinct  in 
essence. 

"According  to  this,  the  evolution  from  one  of  these  orders 
into  the  other — from  matter  into  life,  from  animal  life  into  the 
spiritual  life  of  man — is  impossible. 

"The  question  of  Evolution  within  each  of  these  great  sys- 
tems— of  matter  into  various  forms  of  matter,  of  life  into 
various  forms  of  life,  and  of  mankind  into  all  its  varieties — 
remains  still  open. 

"The  relation  of  these  three  worlds  is  no  less  remarkable. 
Matter — the  lowest  order — is  a  general  substratum  for  all  the 
others.  Aided  and  fashioned  by  the  principle  of  life,  it  per- 
forms higher  functions  in  the  plant  and  animal.  Matter,  plant 
life,  and  animal  life  perform  higher  intellectual  and  moral 
functions  under  the  guidance  of  the  human  soul.  Every  one 
of  the  lower  powers,  associated  with  the  higher  element, 
becomes  instrumental:  the  higher  as  a  cause,  the  lower  as  a 
condition  of  existence,  or  as  an  instrument,  both  cooperating 
to  a  common  progress. 

"But  after  each  of  these  factors  has  performed  its  part,  some- 
thing yet  remains  to  be  explained.  The  result,  varied  as  it  may 
be,  is  never  arbitrary  confusion,  but  order  and  beauty ;  and  this 
shows  the  constant  and  indispensable  supervision  of  God  over 
his  work/' 

Professor  Woodrow  says : 


716 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


"Just  as  there  is  no  scientific  basis  for  the  belief  that  the 
doctrine  of  derivation  or  descent  can  bridge  over  the  chasms 
which  separate  the  non-existent  from  the  existent,  and  the  inor- 
ganic from  the  organic,  so  there  is  no  such  basis  for  the  belief 
that  this  doctrine  can  bridge  over  the  chasm  which  separates 
the  mere  animal  from  the  exalted  being  which  is  made  after  the 
image  of  God.  The  mineral  differs  from  the  animal  in  kind, 
not  merely  in  degree ;  so  the  animal  differs  from  man  in  kind ; 
and  while  science  has  traced  numberless  transitions  from 
degree  to  degree,  it  has  utterly  failed  to  find  any  indications 
of  transition  from  kind  to  kind  in  this  sense. 

"Recognising  that  it  is  God's  Plan  of  Creation,  instead  of 
being  tempted  to  put  away  thoughts  of  him,  as  I  contemplate 
this  wondrous  series  of  events,  caused  and  controlled  by  the 
power  and  wisdom  of  the  Lord  God  Almighty,  I  am  led  with 
profound  reverence  and  admiration  to  give  glory  and  honor  to 
him  that  sits  on  the  throne,  who  liveth  for  ever  and  ever ;  and 
with  fuller  heart  and  truer  appreciation  of  what  it  is  to  create, 
to  join  in  saying,  Thou  art  worthy,  O  Lord,  to  receive  glory 
and  honor  and  power ;  for  thou  hast  created  all  things,  and  for 
thy  pleasure  they  are  and  were  created." 

Professor  Guyot,  as  may  be  seen,  maintains  that  according  to 
the  Sacred  Scriptures,  the  question  of  Evolution  within  each  of 
these  great  systems  remains  still  open.  Could  more  complete 
agreement  with  Professor  Woodrow's  views  be  expressed? 
And  he  divides  the  three  great  systems  just  as  is  done  in  the 
Address — the  dividing  lines  occurring  between  matter  and  life, 
and  between  animal  life  and  the  spiritual  life  of  man. 

Does  not  the  Southwestern  Presbyterian  in  this  do  Professor 
Woodrow  a  great  wrong  in  representing  Professor  Guyot's 
views  in  these  particulars  as  opposing  his,  just  as  it  has  been 
continually  doing  him  another  great  wrong  in  representing  his 
views  as  Darwinism? 

The  Central  Presbyterian  contains  page  after  page  of  what 
professes  to  be  a  discussion  of  our  views ;  but  here,  too,  utter 
misconception  continually  shows  itself.  It  has  much  to  say  of 
our  change  of  opinions,  recantation,  etc.  As  we  have  already 
stated,  our  views  have  not  undergone  the  slightest  change ;  and 
every  word  we  have  uttered  in  these  columns  is  in  perfect 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


717 


accord  with  the  doctrines  set  forth  in  the  Address.  And  all 
that  has  been  said  of  change,  recantation,  and  the  like,  is  purely 
the  result  of  amazing,  unaccountable  misconception. 

It  further,  week  after  week,  expresses  great  anxiety  to  know 
how  far  we  agree  with  Professor  Dana's  views.  We  do  not 
see  how  we  can  state  this  more  clearly  than  we  have  done. 
September  4th  we  said : 

"Both  here  and  in  the  number  for  August  27th,  it  quotes  Pro- 
fessor Dana  as  opposing  Professor  Woodrow's  views.  But  the 
truth  is  that  he  teaches  exactly  what  Prof.  Woodrow  does. 
The  Central  Presbyterian  represents  him  as  believing  'that 
Adam  was  probably  the  direct  offspring  of  one  of  the  lower 
animals'.  And  it  quotes  (August  27th)  the  following  from  a 
letter  written  by  Professor  Dana  in  1879 : 

"  'I  admit  that  it  [man's  creation]  may  have  been,  and  proba- 
bly was,  creation  from  an  inferior  species,  and  not  directly 
from  lifeless  or  inorganic  matter;  in  this  agreeing  with  the  late 
Professor  Tayler  Lewis  among  theologians.' 

"Now,  this  is  exactly  what  is  taught  in  the  Address  as  proba- 
bly true.  This  is  what  is  there  termed  Evolution — descent  with 
modification.  It  is  true  that  Professor  Dana  goes  on  to  say: 
'But  I  show  that  either  is  rightly  a  creation  if  it  be  the  direct 
consequence  of  a  divine  fiat.'  Just  what  he  means  by  this  and 
similar  expressions,  we  are  not  sure,  and  it  does  not  concern  us 
to  inquire;  but  it  remains  evident  that  he  regards  Adam  as  to 
his  animal  nature  as  'probably  the  direct  offspring  of  one  of 
the  lower  animals' — as  illustrating,  therefore,  the  doctrine  of 
descent  with  modification.  And  all  Christians  agree  that  in  any 
case  man's  creation  is  the  result  of  the  divine  will." 

That  is  as  clear  a  statement  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  our 
agreement  as  we  can  make.    Is  it  not  clear  enough? 

Like  the  Southwestern  Presbyterian,  the  Central  continues  its 
efforts  to  prove  that  distinguished  naturalists  oppose  our  views, 
and  with  like  success.    It  says,  for  example : 

"Professor  Dana,  of  Yale  College,  while  yielding  a  qualified 
assent  to  some  general  doctrines  of  Evolution,  which,  as  he 
explains  it,  is  hardly  true  evolution,  holds  that  man,  'both  as  to 
his  body  and  spirit',  was  an  immediate  and  direct  special  crea- 
tion." 


718 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Now  compare  this  with  what  it  stated  in  the  quotation  above : 
Professor  Dana  believes  "that  Adam  was  probably  the  direct 
offspring  of  one  of  the  lower  animals;"  "I  [Prof.  D.]  admit 
that  it  may  have  been  creation  from  an  inferior  species,  and  not 
directly  from  lifeless  or  inorganic  matter/'  And  yet  in  the 
face  of  all  this  the  Central  Presbyterian  asserts  that  "Professor 
Dana  holds  that  man,  'both  as  to  his  body  and  spirit',  was 
an  immediate  and  direct  special  creation".  An  immediate  and 
direct  creation  by  being  the  direct  offspring  of  a  lower  animal, 
and  creation  from  an  inferior  species,  and  not  directly  from 
lifeless  matter! 

Again  like  the  Sonthzvestern,  the  Central  Presbyterian  asserts 
that  Mr.  Mivart  opposes  Professor  Woodrow's  opinion  as  to 
the  probable  origin  of  man's  animal  nature.    It  says : 

"3.  But  there  are  others,  who,  while  they  may  accept  the 
theory  [of  Evolution]  as  applied  to  the  lower  animals,  loudly 
and  earnestly  oppose  it  as  applied  to  man.  St.  George  Mivart 
stands  in  the  front  rank  of  the  naturalists  of  Great  Britain,  and 
holds  this  opinion." 

Is  this  statement  true?  To  enable  us  to  answer  this  question, 
let  us  read  what  Mr.  Mivart  says : 

''Man,  according  to  the  old  scholastic  definition,  is  'a  rational 
animal'  {animal  rationale) ,  and  his  animality  is  distinct  in 
nature  from  his  rationality,  though  inseparably  joined,  during 
life,  in  one  common  personality.  Man's  animal  body  must  have 
had  a  different  source  from  that  of  the  spiritual  soul  which 
informs  it,  owing  to  the  distinctness  of  the  two  orders  to  which 
those  two  existences  severally  belong. 

"Scripture  seems  plainly  to  indicate  this  when  it  says :  'God 
made  man  from  the  dust  of  the  earth,  and  breathed  into  his 
nostrils  the  breath  of  life'.  This  is  a  plain  and  direct  statement 
that  man's  body  was  not  created  in  the  primary  and  absolute 
sense  of  the  word,  but  was  evolved  from  preexisting  material 
(symbolised  by  the  term  'dust  of  the  earth'),  and  was  therefore 
only  derivatively  created,  i.  e.,  by  the  operation  of  secondary 
laws.  His  soul,  on  the  other  hand,  was  created  in  quite  a 
different  way,  not  by  any  preexisting  means,  external  to  God 
himself,  but  by  the  direct  action  of  the  Almighty,  symbolised 
by  the  term  'breathing' :  the  very  form  adopted  by  Christ  when 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


719 


conferring  the  supernatural  powers  and  graces  of  the  Christian 
dispensation."    (Genesis  of  Species,  page  325.) 

"From  the  foregoing  observations  we  seem  to  find  a  perfect 
harmony  in  the  double  nature  of  man,  his  rationality  making 
use  of  and  subsuming  his  animality ;  his  soul  arising  from  direct 
and  immediate  creation,  and  his  body  being  formed  at  first  (as 
now  in  each  separate  individual)  by  derivative  or  secondary 
creation,  through  natural  laws.  By  such  secondary  creation, 
i.  e.,  by  natural  laws,  for  the  most  part  as  yet  unknown  but 
aided  by  'Natural  Selection',  all  the  various  kinds  of  animals 
and  plants  have  been  manifested  on  this  planet."    (P.  331.) 

"Derivative  creation  is  not  a  supernatural  act,  but  is  simply 
the  Divine  action  by  and  through  natural  laws."    (P.  301.) 

We  ask  again,  is  the  assertion  made  by  the  Central  Presby- 
terian true?  What  weight  can  it  expect  will  be  given  to  its 
statements,  in  view  of  these  two  instances  ?  It  cannot  be  neces- 
sary to  multiply  examples  of  a  similar  character,  as  might 
easily  be  done.  Will  it  not  hasten  to  correct  its  erroneous 
statements,  for  its  own  sake  ?  We  cannot  believe  that  it  would 
intentionally  thus  directly  assert  what  is  so  exactly  opposite  to 
the  facts,  though  we  have  no  theory  or  hypothesis  to  offer  in 
explanation  of  how  it  has  come  to  do  so.  But  now  that  its 
grave  error  has  been  pointed  out  to  it,  it  will  surely  lose  no  time 
in  telling  its  readers  how  far  it  has  gone  astray. 

We  shall  say  but  little  of  another  illustration  of  the  useless- 
ness  of  discussion,  namely,  that  which  is  furnished  by  what  is 
said  respecting  our  opinion  as  to  the  different  origin  of  Adam 
and  of  Eve.  This  opinion  is  ridiculed  as  unscientific,  etc., 
without  stint.  If  it  were  based  on  science  as  to  Eve,  it  would 
deserve  all  the  ridicule  and  condemnation  heaped  upon  it.  But 
it  is  not ;  it  is  based  on  what  seems  to  us  a  correct  interpreta- 
tion of  the  word  of  God.  And  with  us  a  statement  of  the  word 
of  God  is  final;  it  is  the  highest  possible  authority.  If  with 
Delitzsch  we  thought  the  Bible  statement  as  to  the  formation 
of  man's  body  means  to  refer  to  a  pile  of  red  clay,  we  would 
find  not  the  least  difficulty  in  believing  it.  But  as  this  is  not 
clear  to  us,  we  must  believe  that  what  is  not  said  to  have  been 
created  extra-naturally  was  created  according  to  God's  ordinary 
methods — and  we  think  that  "descent  with  modification"  proba- 


720 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


bly  describes  God's  ordinary  method  in  passing  from  one  animal 
form  to  another.  The  intimation  frequently  made  that  we 
subordinate  the  authority  of  the  Bible  to  the  authority  of 
science  is  so  palpably  untrue  that  we  cannot  consent  to  dis- 
cuss it. — Oct.  16. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


721 


Speech  Before  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina. 


Moderator,  Fathers,  and  Brethren: 

It  affords  me,  notwithstanding  the  peculiar  circumstances 
which  surround  us  to-night,  no  little  pleasure  once  more  to  meet 
with  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina.  It  is  not  the  first  time  that 
I  have  enjoyed  the  pleasure  of  addressing  this  body;  many 
years  ago  I  met  with  you  in  the  dark  time  that  tried  men's 
souls.  And  therefore  I  come  to  you  as  no  stranger.  At  that 
meeting,  Moderator,  I  had  the  satisfaction  of  communing  with 
my  brethren  touching  the  interests  of  the  same  Seminary  which 
is  occupying  so  much  of  your  attention  at  this  time.  We  had 
been  broken  and  blasted  by  the  fortune  of  war ;  we  were  in  the 
deepest  depression,  and  despair  well-nigh  filled  every  heart: 
and  under  these  circumstances  we  came  together  to  consider 
what  we  should  do  for  our  beloved  Church.  Stout-hearted  as 
is  my  brother  and  father  who  is  sitting  there  before  you  [Dr. 
Adger],  wrapped  up  in  the  Theological  Seminary  as  its  vener- 
ated Chairman,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Howe,  so  much  loved  by  all — 
wrapped  up  in  the  Seminary  as  he  was — even  they  were  ready 
to  give  up  all,  to  retire,  the  one  to  his  farm  in  one  direction,  the 
other  to  seek  a  home  in  another,  and  to  give  up  the  ship.  But 
however  little  it  may  have  been  that  I  could  do,  when  this 
beloved  Seminary  seemed  to  be  so  near  temporary  extinction,  I 
have  ever  thought  with  infinite  satisfaction  that,  little  as  it  may 
have  been,  I  could  contribute  at  least  something  to  the  restora- 
tion of  hope  and  to  the  resumption  of  the  exercises  of  that 
institution  absolutely  necessary  to  the  well-being  of  our  Church. 
I  come  to  you,  Moderator,  as  no  stranger  for  another  reason 
also:  for  thirty-two  years  I  have  been  your  servant.  You 
know  my  manner  of  life;  I  have  taught  you,  and  you, — but 
how  can  I  enumerate,  as  I  look  around  on  this  body,  all  those 
whom  I  have  taught  ?  You  have  seen  me ;  you  have  tried  me ; 
and  if  I  am  guilty  of  aught,  you  know  it.  I  come,  however, 
fearlessly,  because  you  have  known  me — not  fearing  that  one 
recollection  of  all  my  past  will  cause  you  at  this  time  to  distrust 
or  doubt  one  word  that  I  shall  utter.  Whatever  others  may  do, 
you  know  that  there  is  no  room  for  distrust. 

46 — w 


722 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


But,  Moderator,  I  have  to  confess  that  though  I  have  these 
reasons  for  thinking  that  I  am  not  a  stranger,  as  I  have  been 
sitting  here  during  the  last  few  days  I  have  wondered  of  whom 
the  members  of  this  Synod  could  be  speaking.  As  I  listened  to 
words  of  praise,  I  felt  that  they  could  not  apply  to  me,  I  did 
not  deserve  them.  When  I  listened  to  words  of  blame,  I  knew 
that  I  did  not  deserve  them;  I  knew  that  they  must  apply,  if 
applied  truthfully,  to  some  one  else  than  myself.  I  am  not 
guilty,  Moderator,  of  those  things  which  have  been  said  touch- 
ing me,  and  of  those  things  which  have  been  charged  against 
me  since  your  sessions  began.  But  I  said  "guilty."  Am  I  on 
trial,  Moderator?  In  what  capacity  do  I  appear  before  you? 
Am  I  a  prisoner  at  the  bar  ?  Am  I  on  trial  for  my  ecclesiastical 
life?  I  have  been  told,  as  I  have  been  listening  day  after  day, 
that  I  am  not  on  trial ;  and  I  might  have  known  it,  Moderator ; 
because,  when  one  is  to  be  tried,  a  bill  of  indictment  is  pre- 
pared; specific  charges  are  laid  against  him;  he  is  told  of  the 
offence  that  he  has  committed ;  he  has  legal  safeguards  thrown 
around  him;  he  may  appear  and  answer  for  himself,  not  to 
vague  rumors,  not  to  indefinite  utterances,  but  to  the  sharp, 
accurate,  definite  specifications  of  the  evil  that  he  has  done. 
And,  Moderator,  no  charge  has  been  laid  against  me ;  no  accuser 
has  appeared  to  challenge  a  single  thought  or  utterance  of  mine 
before  any  tribunal  of  the  Church.  Moderator,  I  know  by  that 
that  I  am  not  on  trial;  I  know  that  this  Church  which  you 
represent  is  a  law-abiding  Church;  I  know  that  when  it  has 
thrown  the  aegis  of  its  protection  around  me  it  will  not  mob  me  ; 
it  will  not  take  away  my  ecclesiastical  life  by  lynch  law.  And 
therefore  I  have  known,  notwithstanding  the  appearances,  that 
before  such  a  body — a  body  made  up  of  honorable,  truth-loving, 
righteous  men — I  could  not  be  on  trial  when  no  forms  of  trial 
are  observed,  when  no  charge  is  made,  when  no  utterance  of 
mine  has  been  challenged  in  accordance  with  those  rules  which 
you  have  ordained  by  your  authority.  And  yet,  Moderator, 
this,  well  as  I  know  it,  seems  inconsistent  with  much  that  I 
have  heard.  I  have  heard  definitions  of  offences  read  to  see 
whether  or  not  they  applied  to  me;  I  have  heard  the  question 
discussed  whether  that  of  which  I  had  been  supposed  to  be 
guilty  was  heresy  or  not.    "Supposed  to  be  guilty"  ?  "Offence 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


723 


committed"?  Committed  by  whom?  It  was  not  said;  it  was 
intimated ;  the  whole  discussion  took  it  for  granted  that  offences 
were  laid  to  my  charge,  and  that  the  only  question  to  be  decided 
was :  What  is  the  nature  of  the  evil  that  you  have  done?  Now, 
Moderator,  what  has  been  my  offence?  But  before  attempting 
to  answer  in  any  way  that  question,  let  us  see  how  it  happens 
that  I  am  here  before  you  in  any  capacity — what  is  the  cause  of 
my  presence.  I  was  not  summoned  as  I  would  have  been  if  I 
had  been  a  prisoner  at  the  bar ;  but  I  came.  Why  did  I  come? 
I  can  give  most  readily,  perhaps,  an  account  of  the  reasons  of 
my  coming  by  referring  to  the  initial  stages  in  this — what  shall 
I  call  it? — in  this  process?  Why,  I  could  hardly  keep  from 
saying  "process";  and  yet,  is  this  a  process?  Of  what  nature 
is  the  process?  Pardon  me,  Moderator,  if  I  forget  to  discrimi- 
nate sufficiently  before  this  body  in  the  use  of  the  terms  that 
will  exactly  describe  my  position. 

To  begin,  then,  at  the  beginning,  Moderator,  let  me  read  from 
an  account  of  the  origin  as  I  suppose.  You  will  find  it  con- 
tained in  the  journal  which  I  hold  in  my  hand.  I  find  from 
this  that  in  the  year  1882-3  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the 
Theological  Seminary  invited  me  to  deliver  an  address  on  the 
subject  of  "Evolution"  as  it  is  taught  in  the  Theological  Semi- 
nary. They  told  me  that  this  invitation  was  given  because 
skepticism  in  the  world  is  using  alleged  discoveries  in  science 
to  impugn  the  word  of  God;  and  they  thought  that,  as  my 
studies  had  lain  in  that  direction,  I  possibly  might  be  of  some 
service  in  removing  the  objections  to  our  sacred  word,  the 
foundation  of  our  hopes,  by  pointing  out  that  the  charges  made 
against  it  were  not  true.  In  obedience  to  that  request,  I  deliv- 
ered an  address  on  the  subject  which  had  been  assigned  to  me. 
I  had  this  address,  in  accordance  with  the  request  of  the  Board, 
printed,  and  I  sent  a  printed  copy  of  it  to  the  Board,  which  met 
on  the  16th  of  September  in  the  present  year.  I  said  to  the 
Board  that  "in  the  autumn  of  1882  your  report  to  the  Synods 
contained  certain  expressions  touching  evolution  which  led  me 
to  regard  it  as  my  duty  to  take  the  earliest  opportunity  to  call 
your  attention  specially  to  my  instructions  on  that  subject  in 
the  class-room,  although  I  had  already  frequently  done  so  at  the 
successive  annual  examinations."    Delight,  joy,  was  expressed 


724 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


in  that  report  sent  to  the  associated  Synods  in  1882  "that  evolu- 
tion and  other  insidious  errors"  were  not  taught  in  the  Theo- 
logical Seminary.  Now,  that  was  certainly  true,  Moderator; 
evolution  as  an  insidious  error  was  not  taught  nor  referred  to 
in  the  remotest  way.  But  it  was  known  to  the  Board  of  Direct- 
ors that  for  years  I  had  been  pointing  out  the  fact,  in  the 
discharge  of  my  duties,  that  evolution,  whether  true  or  false, 
did  not  in  the  slightest  degree  impugn  the  absolute  truthfulness 
of  a  single  word  in  the  blessed  Bible.  Still,  I  supposed  that  it 
was  my  duty  at  the  earliest  opportunity — that  self-respect 
demanded  it  of  me — that  I  should  give  the  Board  of  Directors 
an  opportunity  of  correcting  any  mistakes  in  their  future 
reports  to  the  authorities  of  the  Church.  After  I  had  called 
their  attention  specifically  to  the  teaching  of  evolution,  as  it  is 
called  (the  teaching,  that  is  to  say,  in  the  sense  that  was 
explained  this  morning,  of  handling  the  subject),  the  Board  of 
Directors  sent  precisely  the  same  report  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly, and  thus  proved  that  they  could  have  no  possible  reference 
to  me  or  to  my  teaching,  in  speaking  of  evolution  in  connexion 
with  insidious  errors,  and  that  it  must  have  been,  consequently, 
that  which  was  on  the  face  of  their  invitation  that  had  led  them 
to  make  the  request  which  they  did.  The  rest  of  my  letter 
from  which  I  was  quoting  is  simply  a  reference  to  the  occasion 
which  I  have  already  in  other  words  stated.  On  the  receipt 
of  this  address,  after  full  and  exhaustive  discussion,  the  follow- 
ing paper  was  adopted  by  the  Board  by  a  vote  of  8  to  3 :  "The 
Board  having  carefully  considered  the  address  of  Dr.  Woodrow, 
published  in  pursuance  of  its  request,  adopts  the  following:  1st. 
Resolved,  That  the  Board  does  hereby  tender  to  Dr.  Woodrow 
its  thanks  for  the  ability  and  faithfulness  with  which  he  has 
complied  with  its  request.  2nd.  That  in  the  judgment  of  this 
Board  the  relations  subsisting  between  the  teachings  of  Script- 
ure and  the  teachings  of  natural  science  are  plainly,  correctly, 
and  satisfactorily  set  forth  in  said  address.  3rd.  That  the 
Board  is  not  prepared  to  concur  in  the  view  expressed  by  Dr. 
Woodrow  as  to  the  probable  method  of  the  creation  of  Adam's 
body;  yet,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Board,  there  is  nothing  in 
the  doctrine  of  evolution,  as  defined  and  limited  by  him,  which 
appears  inconsistent  with  perfect  soundness  in  the  faith.  4th. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


;$5 


That  the  Board  takes  this  occasion  to  record  its  deep  and  ever- 
growing sense  of  the  wisdom  of  our  Synods  in  the  establish- 
ment of  the  'Perkins  Professorship  of  Natural  Science  in 
Connexion  with  Revelation.'  and  of  the  importance  of  such 
instruction  as  is  thereby  afforded,  that  our  ministry  may  be  the 
better  prepared  to  resist  the  objections  of  infidel  scientists  and 
defend  the  Scriptures  against  their  insidious  charges." 

Moderator,  such  approval  from  the  representatives  of  the 
Church  was  a  full  reward  for  all  the  labors  of  the  past  twenty- 
four  years.  It  is  not  as  if  another  occupant  of  the  chair,  or 
the  chair  itself,  had  been  commended,  for  the  Perkins  chair, 
from  its  beginning  to  this  day,  has  been  occupied  by  myself 
alone,  and,  consequently,  whatever  is  said  of  the  importance  and 
value  of  the  teachings  of  that  chair  is  said  of  the  importance 
and  value  of  my  teachings ;  and  when  these  words,  upon  which 
I  will  not  now  further  comment,  are  uttered  by  eight  such  men, 
representatives  of  the  different  Synods  of  this  Church,  I  am 
satisfied — I  am  satisfied  that  I  cannot  have  been  walking  far 
astray  in  the  paths  of  infidelity  or  heresy. 

But,  Moderator,  how  came  I  to  speak  of  natural  science  in 
any  of  its  aspects  in  the  Theological  Seminary,  and  of  evolution 
in  particular?  In  order  to  show  this,  it  will  be  necessary  for 
me  to  carry  you  back  for  some  years,  to  give  a  distinct  history 
of  the  origin  of  my  connexion  with  the  Theological  Seminary 
and  the  teaching  of  natural  science  there  in  any  of  its  aspects. 

In  the  year  1857  the  initial  steps  looking  to  the  establishment 
of  the  Perkins  chair  were  taken,  first  in  the  Presbytery  of  Tom- 
beckbee,  and  afterwards  in  the  Synod  of  Mississippi,  all  based 
upon  this  resolution  : 

'''Whereas  we  live  in  an  age  in  which  the  most  insidious 
attacks  are  made  upon  revealed  religion  through  the  natural 
sciences ;  and  as  it  behooves  the  Church  at  all  times  to  have  men 
capable  of  defending  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints; 
therefore, 

"Resolved,  That  this  Presbytery  recommend  the  endowment 
of  a  professorship  of  the  natural  sciences  as  connected  with 
revealed  religion  in  one  or  more  of  our  theological  seminaries, 
and  would  cheerfully  recommend  our  churches  to  contribute 
their  full  proportion  of  funds  for  said  endowment." 


726 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


The  Synod  of  Mississippi  subsequently  adopted  the  same 
resolution ;  and  so  began  this  chair.  To  that  chair,  Moderator, 
the  Synod  of  Georgia,  representing  the  three  Synods,  covering 
four  States,  which  had  control  of  the  Seminary,  called  me.  I 
did  not  seek  the  honor  or  the  labor.  When  I  was  named  as  a 
suitable  person  for  it,  I  knew  nothing  of  it ;  when  subsequently 
I  was  urged  to  allow  efforts  to  be  made  in  behalf  of  my  election, 
I  sternly  forbade  it,  and  by  no  word  or  act  of  mine  was  a 
single  step  forward  taken  in  the  direction  of  my  occupancy  of 
the  chair.  You  took  me  from  other  duties ;  you  took  me  from 
other  church  work,  from  teaching  by  your  authority  and  in 
your  name,  and  spending  as  much  of  my  time  as  I  possibly 
could  in  preaching  to  the  poor  and  neglected  in  the  regions 
round  about.  You  knew,  Moderator,  what  my  opinions  were ; 
I  had  been  serving  you  for  eight  years.  I  taught  one.  and 
another,  and  another  of  those  who  are  now  to-night  in  this 
house,  principles  which  I  have  heard,  since  I  came  here  into 
this  city  of  Greenville,  denounced  as  contrary  to  the  Confession 
of  Faith  and  the  standards  of  our  Church;  and  you  knew  it. 
The  very  men  who  called  me  to  that  chair  had  either  sat  under 
me,  or  had  been  my  associates,  or  had  been  members  of  the 
Board  of  Trustees  of  Oglethorpe  University,  or  had  been  of 
those  who  confirmed  or  approved  of  my  nomination  and  my 
teaching.  Consequently  you  were  not  electing  some  one  who 
might  have  entertained  opinions  that  were  wholly  and  grossly 
different  from  those  which  you  would  have  taught  the  theo- 
logical students  of  this  Church.  And  now,  what  was  I  to  teach, 
Moderator?  To  what  was  I  called?  At  the  earliest  possible 
moment  after  my  election  I  met  with  the  Board  of  Directors, 
presented  myself  before  them,  to  consult,  to  advise  with  them, 
as  to  what  I  was  to  do.  The  chair  was  new ;  it  was  without 
parallel  in  the  world ;  no  theological  seminary  in  America  or 
Europe  had  anything  that  could  even  remotely  serve  as  my 
guide.  And  what  was  I,  a  youth,  to  do  without  the  help  of  the 
Church,  through  its  representatives,  to  guide  me  ?  I  presented 
to  that  Board,  (not  the  Synod  of  Georgia;  it  was  the  Board  of 
Directors  of  this  Seminary,  representing  all  of  the  constituent 
Synods,  although  it  met  indeed  at  the  same  time  and  in  the 
same  place  with  the  Synod  of  Georgia),  I  presented  to  that 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


727 


Board  an  outline  of  what  seemed  to  me  to  be  my  duty,  and 
asked  their  counsel;  and  they  freely  gave  it  to  me.  They 
approved  my  suggestions ;  they  sanctioned  all  that  I  proposed  to 
do ;  and  from  that  day  to  this  I  have  been  carrying  out  in  good 
faith,  with  pure  conscience,  the  instructions  which  I  thus 
received  from  the  Church ;  because,  though  this  was  only  a 
Board  of  Directors,  you  may  say,  yet  when  one  part  of  the 
Church  is  authorised  to  speak  on  any  point,  it  is  the  whole 
Church  that  is  speaking,  and  I  so  regarded  it.  So  strengthened 
I  have  gone  forward  as  I  have  done  to  this  day. 

I  will,  by  reading  a  portion  of  the  Inaugural  Address  which  I 
delivered  on  that  occasion,  indicate  as  briefly  as  possible  the 
work  that  you,  Moderator,  gave  me  on  that  occasion  to  do,  you 
sitting  as  the  representative  of  the  Church.  It  was  not  a  differ- 
ent body,  it  was  this  body;  and  therefore  I  claim  that  until  I 
am  condemned,  until  disapprobation  of  my  course  has  been 
expressed,  I  may  assume  that  I  am  walking  in  the  narrow  path 
which  you  pointed  out  to  me  at  this  long  time  ago.  After  stat- 
ing other  duties  that  might  have  been  supposed  to  belong  to  the 
professorship,  I  say :  "In  the  third  place,  it  may  be  the  design 
of  the  professorship  to  evince  the  harmony  [between  natural 
science  and  revelation]  only  where  it  has  been  doubted  or  denied, 
or  where  opinions  prevailing  among  scientific  men  either  are,  or 
are  supposed  to  be" — either  are,  or  are  supposed  to  be — "incon- 
sistent with  our  sacred  records;  in  other  words,  to  scrutinise 
the  nature  and  the  force  of  current  and  popular  objections  to 
the  Scriptures ;  to  meet  them,  to  set  them  aside  by  proving" — 
proving  what,  Moderator? — "that  they  spring  either  from 
science  falsely  so  called,  or  from  incorrect  interpretations  of 
the  words  of  the  Holy  Bible."  I  was  warranted,  then,  Modera- 
tor, in  scrutinising  the  interpretations  of  the  Bible  which  might 
be  prevalent  around  me.  You  gave  me  that  work  to  do ;  and 
now  are  you  going  to  make  the  objection  that  I  have  ventured 
to  indicate  that  possibly  some  interpretations  of  the  Bible  that 
have  been  floating  around  in  the  popular  mind  are  incorrect? 
No,  Moderator,  you  are  not  going  to  treat  me  so;  you  are  not 
going  to  tell  me  to  scrutinise  with  all  vigilance  interpretations 
of  the  Bible  and  interpretations  of  nature  to  see  whether  they 
are  correct  or  not;  and  when,  with  all  modesty,  I  venture  to 


728 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


suggest  that  here  may  possibly  be  some  popular  interpretation 
that  is  incorrect,  turn  upon  me  and  say,  "You  are  a  heretic. 
You  are  destroying  the  Church;  you  are  tearing  up  the 
foundations ;  you  are  denying  the  word  of  God ;  you  are  violat- 
ing your  vows." 
I  proceed: 

"This  would  involve  a  careful  study  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  the  various  branches  of  science  from  which  the 
objections  are  drawn,  and  of  their  details,  carried  far  enough 
to  enable  one  to  judge  correctly  of  the  amount  of  truth  in  each 
objection."  Will  you  now  say  that  I  may  teach,  that  I  may 
handle  nothing  in  science,  except  that  which  some  ecclesiastical 
council  has  pronounced  to  be  a  verified  hypothesis?  Why, 
then,  did  you  let  me  say  to  you  twenty-three  years  ago  what  I 
have  just  read,  and  approve  of  my  saying  and  of  my  doing  it? 
And  now,  when  I  have  done  it,  will  you  charge  me  with  all  of 
those  things  which  I  have  heard  echoing  and  reechoing  through 
this  house  these  last  few  days,  and  flooding  the  land  in  the 
religious  and  in  the  secular  journals  from  Maine  to  Texas  and 
California? 

I  say  further : 

"It  would  involve,  further,  the  careful  study  of  the  princi- 
ples of  biblical  interpretation,  as  far  as  these  relate  to  the  mode 
in  which  the  works  of  God  are  spoken  of.  The  comparison  of 
the  results  obtained  thus,  if  the  processes  have  been  properly 
conducted,  must  inevitably  evince  entire  harmony,  or  at  least 
the  entire  absence  of  discord."  Moderator,  that  was  twenty- 
three  years  ago.  In  those  twenty-three  years  I  have  tried  to 
learn  something,  and  I  think  that  I  know  more  now  than  I  did 
twenty-three  years  ago  of  these  relations ;  and  I  find  that  this  is 
the  chief  thing,  perhaps,  that  I  have  learned  in  that  direction: 
that  the  last  phrase  which  I  used  is  the  one  which  I  ought 
exclusively  to  have  used,  instead  of  the  alternative  proposition 
which  I  then  presented,  and  that  the  connexion  is  that  which  I 
then,  youth  as  I  was,  pointed  out :  the  entire  absence  of  discord. 
Now  it  is  this  which  I  regard  as  constituting  the  field  on  which 
most  of  my  labor  is  to  be  expended.  I  had  marked  other 
passages  to  read  from  my  Inaugural  Address  to  show  the 
design  of  this  chair,  but  I  will  not  weary  your  patience  by 
reading  them. 


HIS  TEACHINGS.  729 

And  now  to  what  extent  and  how  am  I  required  to  "teach" 
science,  by  this  compact  to  which  I  have  been  referring  you? 
Why,  teach  it  so  that  its  connexion  with  revelation  can  be 
clearly  understood  in  all  cases  where  that  connexion  is  to  be 
discussed.  As  you  have  been  told  over  and  over  on  this  floor, 
I  have  not  been  teaching  science  for  its  own  sake.  I  have  been 
teaching  it,  indeed ;  but  in  no  case  have  I  taught  or  presented — 
or  handled,  if  you  prefer  the  word — in  no  case  have  I  handled 
the  subject  of  natural  science,  except  for  the  express  and 
limited  purpose  of  pointing  out  the  connexion  which  you  had 
ordered  me  to  do  by  the  voice  of  the  Church,  representing  the 
voice  of  God.    That  is  the  extent. 

And  now,  how  have  I  taught,  Moderator  ?  Did  I  ever  teach 
you  that  you  were  to  receive  at  my  lips,  by  my  authority,  a 
single  sentiment — a  single  opinion?  Did  I  ever  inculcate  upon 
you  the  duty  of  receiving  one  opinion  that  I  expressed,  because 
I  expressed  it?  Yes,  one — one,  not  with  regard  to  natural 
science,  however.  The  only  thing  that  I  ever  inculcated  upon 
any  of  these  dear  brethren,  whose  faces  I  see  turned  up  towards 
me  at  this  moment,  was  that  there  is  but  one  authority  before 
which  you  must  bow.  You  must  bow  before  the  Lord  God 
Almighty;  you  must  accept  his  word;  you  must  submit  to  his 
control ;  and  beyond  that  you  must  submit  to  no  control.  You 
are  freemen  in  the  Lord.  If  I  have  with  weariness  to  you 
taught  any  one  thing,  it  was:  "Nullius  jurare  in  verba  mag- 
istri"  I  have  not  inculcated  science  upon  you ;  I  have  insisted 
that  at  every  step  that  you  took  you  must  judge  for  yourselves 
as  you  were  to  answer  to  the  sole  authority.  You  know  this, 
as  do  those,  not  yet  members  of  this  body,  who  are  still  sitting 
under  my  instructions.  I  am  to  be  forbidden  to  inculcate?  I 
never  have  inculcated,  except  in  the  sense  explained.  If  you 
call  that  inculcation,  I  have  done  nothing  else.  But  science,  as 
I  repeat — and  this  seems  to  me  to  include  all  the  information 
that  you  desire  on  that  point — science  for  its  own  sake  I  have 
never  even  remotely  referred  to  in  the  hearing  of  any  human 
being  within  the  walls  of  that  Theological  Seminary. 

Let  me  say,  further,  as  is  perhaps  sufficiently  evident — but 
for  fear  it  may  not  be,  let  me  refer  very  briefly  to  another 
point — that  the  object  of  this  chair  is  purely  apologetic;  it  is 


730 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


purely  defensive.  Let  me  recur  to  the  Synodical  resolution 
establishing  the  chair  and  then  you  will  see : 

"Resolved,  That  in  accordance  with  the  conditions  annexed 
to  the  generous  donation  of  Judge  Perkins,  there  be  added  to 
the  existing  departments  of  instruction  in  the  Seminary,  a  chair, 
to  be  entitled  the  Perkins  Professorship  of  Natural  Science  in 
Connexion  with  Revelation ;  the  design  of  which  shall  be  to 
evince  the  harmony  of  science  with  the  records  of  our  faith, 
and  to  refute  the  objections  of  infidel  naturalists."  When  I 
had  the  opportunity  for  consultation  with  it,  I  found  that  the 
Board,  that  is  to  say,  the  Church,  agreed  with  me  that  the  last 
clause  of  this  resolution  chiefly  set  forth  the  intention  which  it 
had  in  establishing  the  chair  :  "to  refute  the  objections  of  infidel 
naturalists." 

Moderator,  to  refute,  to  answer  objections,  what  does  that 
require?  I  see  learned  members  of  the  Bar  sitting  in  this 
house.  When  the  evidence  of  two  witnesses  is  said  to  be  con- 
tradictory, what  do  they  do?  Do  they  undertake  to  show  that 
the  evidence  of  the  one  is  identical  with  the  evidence  of  the 
other?  Do  they  not  rather  maintain  confidently  before  the 
judge  and  the  jury  that  they  have  refuted  the  objection  that 
was  made  against  the  evidence  of  the  two  witnesses  when  they 
have  presented  some  probable  hypothesis  which  would  entirely 
remove  the  apparent  contradiction  which  had  existed?  It  is 
not  necessary — it  would  be  absurd,  impossible— to  require  that 
it  shall  be  shown  that  the  two  witnesses,  who  may  be  speaking 
of  entirely  different  things,  agree  with  one  another.  But  when 
they  have  shown  that  there  is  a  reasonable  interpretation  of 
their  testimony  which  is  consistent  with  the  absence  of  contra- 
diction, they  have  accomplished  all  that  any  court  of  justice 
would  ever  require,  or  the  common  sense  of  any  man  living, 
whether  in  a  court  of  justice  or  not.  Therefore  this  is  the 
point  of  view  from  which  I  have  regarded  the  subject. 

But  you  have  heard,  Moderator,  frequent  reference  to  the 
formula  of  subscription.*    I  will  not  take  time  to  read  that 

*Const.  Theo.  Sem.,  Section  III.,  Article  5:  "Every  Professor,  when 
inaugurated,  shall  publicly  subscribe  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  other 
standards,  agreeably  to  the  following  formula:  'In  the  presence  of  God 
and  these  witnesses,  I  do  solemnly  subscribe  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
Catechisms,  and  other  standards  of  government,  discipline,  and  worship 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States,  as  a  just  summary  of 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


731 


formula ;  I  will  simply  remind  you  that  it  includes  my  vows,  my 
solemn  oath  before  God  and  the  Church,  that  I  accept  the  Con- 
fession of  Faith  as  containing  "a  just  summary  of  the  doctrines 
contained  in  the  Bible,"  and  pledging  myself  that  I  would  teach 
nothing  directly  or  indirectly  in  opposition  thereto.  And  with 
regard  to  this  I  may  say  again  in  all  good  conscience,  I  have 
kept  my  vows.  But  during  the  progress  of  the  single  act  of 
inauguration  or  introducing  me  into  my  chair,  I  called  the 
attention  of  the  Church — for  remember,  Moderator,  that  it  was 
the  Church  that  was  assembled  in  the  Board  of  Directors — I 
called  the  attention  of  the  Church  to  that  which  I  might  have 
assumed  they  well  knew  before,  and  insisted  that  they  should 
observe  that  I  was  going  to  teach,  in  the  sense  explained,  this : 
that  the  teachings  of  geology  respecting  the  antiquity  of  the 
earth  are  true.  A  vow  is  binding  in  the  sense  of  those  who 
impose  that  vow.  The  Church  was  assembled  in  the  Board  of 
Directors  when  this  vow  was  imposed  upon  me,  and  I  took  it  in 
the  sense  in  which  they  imposed  it.  They  imposed  it  in  such 
sense  that  it  was  not  to  be  regarded  as  inconsistent  with  it  that 
I  should  teach  that  this  world  was  created  more  than  one  hun- 
dred and  forty-four  hours  before  Adam.  The  Board  knew, 
and  they  accepted  my  subscription  with  this  understanding,  that 
I  was  going  to  teach  something  very  different  from  the  doctrine 
that  the  world  was  created  only  one  hundred  and  forty- four 
hours  before  Adam;  if  that  is  in  the  Confession  of  Faith,  that 
is  not  what  I  am  going  to  teach ;  I  am  going  to  teach  that  the 
world  is  more  than  ten  days  even  older  than  Adam ;  yes,  more 
than  several  months  older.  Moderator,  I  told  them,  in  telling 
them  what  I  did,  that  I  was  going  to  teach  that  the  world  was 
so  old  that  the  mind  of  man  would  utterly  fail  to  grasp  not  the 
years  alone,  but  the  centuries  and  the  thousands  of  years  during 
which  I  not  only  believed  but  knew  it  had  been  existing.  And 
Moderator,  having  taken  this  oath  in  the  sense  of  those  who 
imposed  it  upon  me,  I  repeat  I  have  kept  it  in  all  good  con- 
science to  this  day. 

The  part  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  which  refers  to  the 
matter  of  which  I  have  just  been  speaking  is  this:  "It  pleased 

the  doctrines  contained  in  the  Bible,  and  promise  and  engage  not  to 
teach,  directly  or  indirectly,  any  doctrine  contrary  to  this  belief,  while  I 
continue  a  Professor  in  the  Seminary.' " 


732 


DR.  JAMSS  WOODROW. 


God  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  for  the  manifestation  of 
the  glory  of  his  eternal  power,  wisdom,  and  goodness,  in  the 
beginning,  to  create  or  make  of  nothing  the  world,  and  all 
things  therein,  whether  visible  or  invisible,  in  the  space  of  six 
days,  and  all  very  good."  I  will  not  enter  upon  an  argument 
as  to  the  meaning  of  this ;  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  admit  the 
argument  of  my  learned  brother  from  Columbia  [W.  A.  Clark, 
Esq.],  or  the  argument  of  my  learned  colleague  [Rev.  Dr. 
Girardeau]  on  the  opposite  side.  I  am  perfectly  indifferent  as 
to  what  its  meaning  is.  Following  a  principle  which  I  have 
always  adopted,  whenever  any  interpretation  of  any  doctrine 
has  been  favorable  to  myself  or  to  my  supposed  opinions,  I 
have  leaned  against  it  and  away  from  it.  And  therefore  I  have 
never  sought  to  show  that  this  meant  anything  else  except  that 
which  my  colleague  insists  that  it  means;  I  have  always 
assumed  that  it  meant  what  he  supposes.  And  it  was  under  the 
influence  of  that  principle  at  that  early  date  that  I  guarded 
against  any  possible  misconstruction — against  the  idea  that  by 
any  attempt,  any  effort  of  mine,  I  was  stealing  into  public 
office  in  the  Church  with  the  intention  of  violating  my  vows  and 
corrupting  the  youth  of  the  Church  by  my  false  teachings. 

I  wish  to  say  at  this  stage,  for  fear  I  shall  forget  it  later,  that 
from  that  day  to  this,  with  regard  to  all  of  my  teachings,  there 
is  not  one  other  word  or  syllable  that  I  would  wish  to  have 
changed  in  this  Confession  or  in  these  Catechisms,  from  begin- 
ning to  end.  With  regard  to  all  the  rest  of  what  is  said  of  the 
work  of  creation,  there  is  not,  "evolutionist"  though  I  may  be, 
there  is  not  one  syllable  that  I  would  have  altered — not  one 
syllable  that  does  not  express  my  interpretation  of  the  word  of 
God.  The  rest  of  this  chapter  is  as  follows :  "After  God  had 
made  all  other  creatures,  he  created  man,  male  and  female, 
with  reasonable  and  immortal  souls,  endued  with  knowledge, 
righteousness,  and  true  holiness,  after  his  own  image,"  etc. 
And  the  Larger  Catechism  says:  "After  God  had  made  all 
other  creatures,  he  created  man,  male  and  female;  formed  the 
body  of  the  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  the  woman  of 
the  rib  of  the  man,"  etc.  There  is  not  one  word  here,  not  one 
syllable,  which  I  would  have  changed,  if  I  had  the  power  of  the 
entire  Presbyterian  Church  in  my  hands  this  moment.  This 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


733 


expresses  my  exact  belief  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  of 
God;  and  in  that  word — though  the  opposite  may  be  charged 
again  and  again,  as  it  has  been  charged — in  that  word  I  find 
not  one  syllable  which  I  disbelieve.  Shall  I  again  be  met  by  the 
taunt,  "So  says  the  Unitarian;  so  the  Arian  of  every  grade"? 
Whether  this  shall  be  repeated  jeeringly  against  me  or  not,  I 
will  say  once  more  that  every  word  of  the  Bible  I  receive  as 
coming  from  the  God  of  all  truth. 

Now,  Moderator,  after  this  historical  statement,  I  may  repeat 
that  it  was  the  Board's  invitation  that  I  publish  my  views,  the 
Board's  report  upon  my  Address,  and  the  protest  against  that 
report — it  was  these  things  which  brought  up  this  case — case  I 
suppose  I  can  call  it,  inasmuch  as  a  recent  determination  of  the 
General  Assembly  in  one  instance  was  that  anything  that  might 
be  presented  before  an  ecclesiastical  body  is  a  "case." 

In  the  next  place,  let  me  ask  what  right  has  the  Church  to 
teach  anything  directly  or  indirectly  with  reference  to  natural 
science?  Does  the  Church  exist  for  the  purpose  of  teaching 
natural  science  ?  Had  the  Church  any  right  to  establish  such  a 
chair  as  that  which  I  occupy  ?  Let  us  consider  a  little  while  this 
question,  What  right  has  the  Church  to  do  anything?  Mod- 
erator, what  is  the  Church  ?  What  commission  has  been  placed 
in  its  hands?  I  will  not  read  that  commission  as  recorded  in 
both  the  places  where  I  find  it,  but  content  myself  with  reading 
it  as  it  is  presented  in  one  of  these.  As  our  blessed  Lord  was 
about  to  leave  this  earth  as  to  his  bodily  presence,  he  said  to  the 
assembled  eleven,  representing  you,  representing  me,  represent- 
ing there  the  entire  body  of  those  who  should  be  collected  in 
subsequent  ages  as  constituting  the  members  of  his  kingdom 
and  the  subjects  of  it  upon  earth:  "Go  ye  into  all  the  world 
and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature,"  or  as  it  is  given  in  a 
parallel  passage,  "the  things  that  I  have  commanded."  There, 
and  there  alone,  do  we  find  our  commission.  Whatever  is  incon- 
sistent with  that  commission,  you  have  no  right  to  do.  If  you 
go  one  step  beyond  the  things  here  commanded ;  if  you  authori- 
tatively undertake  to  teach  anything  that  is  outside  of  the  gospel 
or  the  "things  commanded,"  that  is  to  say,  the  contents  of 
the  Holy  Bible ;  if  you  go  a  hair's  breadth  outside  of  that,  you 
are  adding  to  what  the  Lord,  the  King  of  this  kingdom,  has 


734 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


enjoined  upon  you;  you  are  transgressing  his  law;  you  are 
preparing  the  way  for  the  addition  of  the  plagues  which  are 
written  in  this  book  to  your  lot,  if  you  so  do.  You  may  preach 
the  gospel,  you  may  teach  that;  and  you  may  authoritatively 
teach  nothing  else.  Here  is  the  foundation,  then,  upon  which 
we  rest. 

But,  Moderator,  that  does  not  exhaust  the  statement, 
although  every  addition  to  it  must  come  within  it.  I  suppose 
that  it  will  be  conceded  without  argument  that  the  principle  is 
true  that  whenever  a  duty  is  commanded  or  a  right  conferred 
by  competent  authority,  everything  necessary  to  the  proper  per- 
formance of  that  duty  or  enjoyment  of  that  right  is  also 
commanded  or  conferred.  Is  this  admitted?  Then  it  follows 
that  since  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  commanded  his  Church  to 
preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature,  he  has  also  thereby  empow- 
ered it  to  do  what  is  necessary  to  obey  that  command  in  the 
best  possible  manner — among  other  things,  to  train  and  educate 
those  who  shall  preach  the  gospel.  If  there  is  anything 
"expressly  set  down  in  Scripture/'  or  by  good  and  necessary 
consequence  deducible  from  the  Scriptures,  showing  how  this 
is  to  be  done,  such  methods  must  be  rigorously  followed,  and 
the  slightest  departure  from  them  is  sin  against  the  headship  of 
the  King.  But  no  methods  being  prescribed  in  the  Scriptures, 
then  such  and  only  such  are  to  be  adopted  as  "are  ordered  by 
the  light  of  nature  and  Christian  prudence,  according  to  the 
general  rules  of  the  word,  which  are  always  to  be  observed." 
All  that  relates  to  the  training  or  educating  of  the  ministry, 
according  to  the  universal  interpretation  of  our  Church  for 
ages,  falls  under  the  last  sentence  just  quoted  from  the  Confes- 
sion, and  consequently  that  wisdom,  that  prudence  with  which 
the  King  of  Zion  has  endowed  his  subjects,  is  to  be  exercised  in 
selecting  the  methods  by  which  his  great  command  is  to  be  best 
observed. 

Bui  what  are  the  limits,  Moderator  ?  I  do  not  mean  now,  in 
asking  that  question,  the  limits  so  far  as  regards  simply  the 
matter  of  educating  or  training  those  who  shall  preach  the 
gospel:  but  what  are  the  limits  universally?  Moderator,  the 
Church  may  not  only  teach  those  things  which  tend  to  prepare 
preachers  efficiently  to  preach  the  gospel,  but  it  may  do  any- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


735 


thing  that  will  directly  or  indirectly  promote  the  efficient 
preaching  of  the  gospel.  It  may  buy  land  ;  it  may  build  houses  ; 
it  may  go  to  Wall  Street  and  buy  exchange ;  it  may  set  type 
and  print  books ;  it  may  build  ships ;  in  short,  there  is  nothing 
that  it  may  not  do,  all  under  this  limitation:  that  the  building, 
that  the  printing,  that  the  buying  of  exchange,  is  done  with 
reference  to  the  accomplishment  of  the  one  great  aim,  the 
proclamation  of  the  gospel  with  the  utmost  power  and  efficiency. 
Do  you  believe  that,  Moderator?  I  know  that  you  believe  it; 
I  know  that  there  is  no  one  here  who  can  fail  to  believe  it.  if  he 
will  but  exercise  his  unprejudiced  reason  upon  it. 

But,  next,  as  to  this  matter  of  teaching — let  me  call  your 
attention  to  the  fact  that  it  is  not  teaching  in  the  Theological 
Seminary  alone;  but  in  accordance  with  the  principle  just 
stated,  the  Church  may,  if  it  is  necessary  to  accomplish  the 
object  which  I  have  pointed  out,  take  the  little  child  and  teach 
it  its  alphabet;  it  may  take  the  boy  and  teach  him  in  the 
academy ;  it  may  teach  him  in  the  college ;  it  may  teach  him  in 
the  theological  seminary ;  it  may  do  whatever  fairly  and  hon- 
estly comes  within  the  limitations  presented.  And  accordingly 
the  Church,  recognising  this  principle,  has  established  colleges 
and  schools  of  all  grades  ;  and  its  relations  to  each — its  relations 
to  the  college,  to  the  seminary,  to  the  parochial  school — its 
relations  in  every  case  are  identical,  without  the  slightest  modi- 
fication. The  Church  as  truly  teaches  mathematics  as  it 
teaches  theology.  At  Davidson  College,  for  example,  you  find 
that  the  relations  subsisting  between  the  professors  and  the 
ecclesiastical  bodies  controlling  that  institution,  are  exactly  the 
same  as  those  which  exist  between  myself  and  the  Board  of 
Directors  of  the  Theological  Seminary  and  the  Synods  associ- 
ated in  control  of  the  Board  of  Directors.  Prof.  Martin  and 
Prof.  Blake  and  Pres.  Hepburn  are  as  really  the  Church's 
representatives,  clothed  with  church  power,  as  is  any  theological 
professor  under  your  control.  It  is  you  who  are  teaching 
mathematics ;  it  is  you  who  are  teaching  political  economy ;  it  is 
you  who  are  teaching  chemistry,  just  as  truly  as  it  is  you  who 
are  teaching  church  history  or  theology  at  Columbia ;  and  you 
have  the  same  right  to  do  it,  provided  always  that  the  exercise 
of  wisdom  and  prudence  shows  that  thereby  you  are  preparing 


736 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


for  the  most  efficient  preaching  of  the  gospel,  which  is  your  sole 
duty.  It  is  useless,  therefore,  in  view  of  the  facts  which  I  have 
now  stated — it  is  useless  for  you  to  attempt  to  make  any  dis- 
tinction between  teaching  in  a  theological  seminary  and  teaching 
in  a  college.  That  which  you  do  by  your  agent,  you  do  your- 
self ;  and  President  Hepburn  is  as  much  your  agent  as  I  am 
your  agent;  and  if  you  have  no  right  to  teach  metaphysics  or 
political  economy  through  President  Hepburn,  then,  and  then 
only,  have  you  no  right  to  teach  any  subject  that  it  may  please 
you  to  teach  through  me  in  the  exercise  of  your  wisdom  and 
prudence. 

And  now,  Moderator,  having,  as  I  think,  established  your 
right  to  have  a  Perkins  Professorship,  let  me  ask  you,  What  is 
your  responsibility  for  my  teaching?  How  far  are  you  respons- 
ible for  the  details  of  my  instruction?  Are  you  to  see  to  it 
that  every  word  that  I  say  is  strictly  scientifically  correct?  I 
suppose  that  we  can  best  examine  this  question  by  examining 
another  similar  case.  How  is  it  in  the  matter  of  chemistry? 
When  you,  the  Church,  teach  chemistry  through  Prof.  Martin, 
what  is  your  responsibility  for  the  kind  of  chemistry  that  he 
teaches?  Did  you,  as  a  Synod,  a  few  years  ago,  when  the 
chemistry  of  the  world  underwent  a  revolution,  and  that  which 
thirty  years  ago  was  supposed  to  be  true  came  to  be  regarded 
as  not  true  in  this  science,  did  you  expect  Prof.  Martin  to  come 
before  you  and  say,  "The  chemistry  that  I  am  going  to  teach 
in  the  future  is  not  like  the  chemistry  that  I  have  taught  in  the 
past ;  I  tell  you  now  that  I  believe  that  what  I  formerly  taught 
was  not  true"?  As  we  have  now  an  entirely  new  chemistry, 
why  did  Prof.  Martin  not  come  before  you  and  urge  upon  you 
the  consideration  of  the  question :  "Shall  I  teach  the  new  chem- 
istry ?  Or,  am  I,  because  I  taught  the  old  when  I  was  elected, 
under  obligation  to  continue  to  teach  it  whether  I  believe  it  or 
not?"  Moderator,  the  idea  is  preposterous  that  you  are 
responsible  for  the  kind  of  chemistry  that  is  taught.  I  do  not 
ask  it  in  any  personally  slighting  way — I  hope  you  will  under- 
stand me — but  how  could  you  tell  which  was  right?  What 
do  you  know  about  it  ?  What  does  this  Synod  know  ?  I  have 
the  utmost  respect  for  your  knowledge  ;  but  just  imagine  your- 
selves undertaking  to  direct  your  agents  as  to  what  they  shall 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


737 


teach  in  Davidson  College.  I  will  not  apply  this  question  to 
myself,  Moderator !  I  will  assume  that  you  know  exactly  what  I 
ought  to  teach  with  regard  to  scientific  matters.  But  speaking 
of  these  other  gentlemen,  I  am  not  so  sure.  And  it  would  be 
an  unfortunate  thing  if  this  Synod's  time  should  be  occupied 
year  after  year  in  considering  whether  the  changing  aspects  of 
science  did  not  require  that  you  should  say  to  the  professors  at 
Davidson,  "You  shall  teach  this  and  not  this,"  or  "You  shall 
not  teach  the  other,  because  we,  sitting  as  a  court  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  pronounce  it  to  be  an  'unverified  hypothesis.'  " 
Is  that  the  function  of  a  court  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ?  But 
I  ask,  what  is  your  responsibility  then?  Your  responsibility 
terminates  when  you  have  selected  those  in  whom  you  confide 
as  to  their  general  knowledge,  as  to  their  ability,  and  as  to  their 
fidelity,  and,  above  all,  as  to  this :  that  they  shall  teach  nothing 
that  contradicts  the  word  of  God.  There,  and  there  alone,  is 
the  limit  of  your  responsibility.  Your  professors,  like  yourself, 
Moderator,  as  pastor — your  professors  are  of  the  nature  of 
professional  counsel.  You  indeed  employ  your  professors ;  so 
do  I  employ  a  lawyer  or  a  physician — and  in  the  same  sense. 
But  when  I  have  employed  him  and  put  the  case  into  his  hands, 
and  told  him  which  case  of  mine  I  wish  him  to  attend  to,  do  I 
venture  to  say  how  he  is  to  bring  suit?  Am  I  to  watch  him 
and  see  that  he  pleads  law  correctly  and  that  he  makes  no 
mistakes  ?  Or  when  you  are  called  as  pastor,  does  the  Presby- 
tery undertake  to  prescribe  for  you  your  texts;  whether  you 
shall  preach  extemporaneously  or  otherwise ;  whether  you  shall 
preach  chiefly  from  the  Old  Testament  or  the  New;  whether 
you  shall  use  poetic  language  or  plain  simple  prose;  whether 
you  shall  confine  yourself  to  the  very  words  of  the  Bible,  or 
make  it  the  basis  of  your  ideas  without  using  its  very  words? 
No,  Moderator ;  when  you  are  called  to  be  pastor  of  a  church, 
you  become  the  professional  counsel  of  that  church;  and  you 
teach  what  you  think  to  be  the  truth  of  the  Scriptures  in  the 
way  that  you  think  best ;  and  the  only  control — the  only  rightful 
control — which  the  Presbytery  has  over  you  is  that  you  shall 
teach  nothing  contrary  to  the  word  of  God.  There  is  no  other 
limit;  and  as  to  any  supposition  that  you  may  make  in  the 
course  of  your  exposition  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  respecting 


47 — w 


738 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


the  meaning  of  this  passage  or  that,  there  is  no  control  over  you 
except  within  the  limits  that  I  have  pointed  out:  that  your 
teachings  shall  not  contradict  the  word  of  God  as  interpreted  by 
our  standards.  The  Church  teaches  natural  science,  Mod- 
erator: teaches  it,  that  is  to  say,  as  I  need  hardly  continue  to 
repeat  quite  so  often  perhaps,  with  the  intention  of  training  by 
the  culture  and  absolute  knowledge  that  is  conveyed;  teaches 
it  so  that  thereby  it  may  prepare  one  the  better  to  preach  the 
gospel,  which  alone  it  may  authoritatively  do.  Here  is  its 
authority  in  both  directions.  Now,  as  it  may  teach  authorita- 
tively nothing  except  the  word  of  God  and  the  things  intrusted 
to  it  by  its  King,  is  it  competent  to  sit  in  judgment  on  anything 
else?  Is  it  competent  to  the  Church  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  truth  or  falsity  of  any  proposition  in 
science  ?  Has  it  a  right  to  consider  whether  the  multiplication 
table  that  is  used  throughout  its  schools  is  correct  or  not?  You 
are  abundantly  competent,  Moderator,  no  doubt,  to  tell  whether 
the  multiplication  table  is  correct  or  not ;  but  it  is  not  competent 
to  you,  sitting  as  a  presbyter,  in  the  Church,  to  express  any 
opinion  on  that  subject.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  not 
intrusted  you  with  that  work.  Truth  indeed  is  involved ;  it 
may  be  a  false  multiplication  table.  It  may  be  filled  with 
ruinous  errors,  as  to  the  business  man  who  conducts  his  busi- 
ness according  to  it ;  it  may  lead  astray  in  many  directions ;  but 
it  is  not  your  business  to  correct  it.  However  competent  you 
may  be,  it  is  not  competent  to  you  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  it. 

And  this  brings  me  to  that  which  is  the  conclusion  of  this 
part  of  what  I  have  to  say  to  you :  that  you  can  have,  that  you 
dare  have,  no  opinion  on  any  subject  except  as  that  subject  is 
related  directly  to  the  word  of  God.  As  to  whether  an  opinion 
is  correct  or  not,  as  to  whether  a  hypothesis  is  proved  or  not 
proved,  you  may  not  open  your  lips  when  you  are  speaking  as 
the  representative  of  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord.  He  has  not  com- 
missioned you  to  do  that  thing;  and  if  you  do  it,  you  will  be 
going  beyond  the  authority  that  he  has  given  you.  Just  as, 
according  to  one  of  the  illustrations  used  in  the  debate  now  in 
progress,  you  may  not  interfere  with  my  political  opinions  or 
discuss  the  question  as  to  whether  on  the  4th  of  November  next 
I  should  vote  for  Blaine  or  Cleveland,  just  so  you  have  no  right 


HIS  TEACHINGS 


739 


to  discuss  any  of  my  opinions  or  any  of  my  teachings  in  the 
discharge  of  the  duties  to  which  you  have  appointed  me,  except 
in  the  one  particular  as  to  whether  or  not  they  contradict  the 
word  of  God.  Where  do  you  get  such  authority?  In  the 
charter  containing  the  things  commanded  ?  No,  Moderator ; 
you  don't  get  it  anywhere ;  and  what  you  don't  get  in  that  char- 
ter is  withheld  from  you ;  and  if  you  claim  such  authority,  you 
are  usurping  the  rights  of  others,  you  are  stepping  out  of  your 
sphere,  you  are  claiming  that  which  the  Lord  the  King  has  care- 
fully kept  out  of  your  hands. 

Xow,  Moderator,  having  established  these  principles,  as  I 
trust  and  believe  all  will  agree,  I  proceed  to  the  examination  of 
the  paper  which  was  presented  to  you  by  the  minority  of  the 
Committee  on  Theological  Seminaries,  but  prepared,  as  the 
writer  of  it  informs  us,  from  notes  furnished  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Girardeau,  my  colleague  in  the  Theological  Seminary.  The 
first  resolution  in  this  minority  report  is : 

"Resolved,  That  the  question  whether  Dr.  Woodrow's  views 
in  regard  to  evolution  involve  heresy  is  not  before  the  Synod." 

Moderator,  I  am  perfectly  certain  that  every  word  of  affec- 
tion and  of  care  for  the  reputation  of  his  colleague  which  was 
spoken  by  Dr.  Girardeau  is  strictly  true  in  its  fullest  sense;  I 
know  that  all  that  he  said  in  that  direction  is  not  to  be  ques- 
tioned. But,  Moderator,  I  cannot  blind  myself  to  the  conviction 
that  his  heart  has  interfered  in  this  particular  with  the  usual 
clearness  of  the  working  of  his  head.  "The  question  whether 
Dr.  Woodrow's  views  with  regard  to  evolution  involve  heresy 
is  not  before  the  Synod."  Well,  why  did  you  say  anything 
about  it  ?  Suppose  I  were  to  say  and  publish  to  the  world  "that 
the  question  of  the  Rev.  J.  Spratt  White's  honesty  and  truth- 
fulness is  not  now  before  the  Synod ;"  what  would  you  think 
of  that,  Moderator,  if  I  introduced  a  paper  containing  that 
expression?  Would  you  be  content  with  the  disclaimer,  going 
out  with  the  paper  to  the  world,  that  it  never  occurred  to  me  to 
question  your  honor  and  truthfulness  and  integrity?  Why  say 
anything  about  it,  if  your  honor  and  truthfulness  and  integrity 
are  not  called  in  question  ?  But,  Moderator,  that  is  not  all ;  let 
us  read  on  and  take  in  connexion  with  this  the  fourth  resolution 
of  this  minority  report:  "Resolved,  That  the  action  of  the 


740 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Board  of  Directors  virtually  approving  the  inculcation  and  the 
defence  of  the  unverified  hypothesis  of  evolution  in  the  Theo- 
logical Seminary  at  Columbia,  is,  the  majority  of  the  Synods  of 
Georgia,  Alabama,  South  Georgia  and  Florida  concurring, 
hereby  reversed;  and  that  the  inculcation  and  defence  of  the 
said  hypothesis,  even  as  a  probable  one,  in  the  Theological 
Seminary,  as  being  contrary  to  the  interpretation  of  the 
Scriptures  by  our  Church  and  to  her  prevailing  and  recognised 
views,  is,  a  majority  of  the  associated  Synods  concurring, 
hereby  prohibited."  Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  that  is  a  charge 
which  comes  very  near  placing  me  on  trial.  If  I  use  very 
inaccurate  language  on  this  point,  Moderator,  and  speak  of 
myself  as  being  on  trial,  remember  I  don't  mean  it — I  don't 
mean,  of  course,  that  I  am  on  trial ;  but  if  I  do  slip,  let  me  slip, 
and  I  won't  correct  myself,  but  I'll  take  it  for  granted  that 
youll  understand  that  I  don't  mean  that.  But,  Moderator, 
here  I  am  before  this  Synod  directly  charged  with  teaching  in 
the  Theological  Seminary  that  which  is  contrary  to  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  Scriptures  by  our  Church;  and  yet  you  are  told 
that  I  am  not  charged  with  heresy.  Well,  I  care  very  little 
about  the  words  employed ;  but  so  to  teach  is  an  "offence,"  isn't 
it?    Let  us  see. 

"An  offence,"  as  you  heard  read  by  the  author  of  this  paper 
in  direct  reference  to  this  particular  matter,  "the  proper  object 
of  judicial  process,  is  anything  in  the  principles  or  practice  of  a 
church  member  professing  faith  in  Christ  which  is  contrary  to 
the  word  of  God."  Now  it  is  stated  in  this  paper  which  this 
Synod  is  asked  to  adopt,  that  what  I  do,  what  I  teach,  what  I 
believe,  is  contrary  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  by  the 
Church,  which  is  the  Scripture.  I  am  then  charged  with  an 
offence ;  so  much,  at  least,  is  clear.  But  an  offence  is  the  proper 
object  of  a  judicial  process.  If  then  I  am  charged  with  an 
offence,  and  the  safeguards  of  a  judicial  process  are  not  thrown 
around  me,  is  justice  done  me?  But  this  offence  is  not  heresy, 
you  are  told.  Oh  no,  it  is  not  heresy  that  you  are  charged 
with ;  that  is  not  before  the  Synod.    Well,  what  is  ? 

What  is  heresy,  Moderator?  I  will  not  inquire  of  Black- 
stone,  I  will  not  inquire  of  Webster ;  I  will  read  what  the  nature 
of  heresy  is  from  our  sole  guide  in  this  matter:  "Heresy  and 


HIS  TEACHINGS 


741 


schism  may  be  of  such  a  nature  as  to  warrant  deposition  :  but 
errors  ought  to  be  carefully  considered,  whether  they  strike  at 
the  vitals  of  religion,  and  are  industriously  spread,  or  whether 
they  arise  from  the  weakness  of  the  human  understanding,  and 
are  not  likely  to  do  much  injury." 

Now,  under  which  of  these  categories  does  my  contradiction 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  come?  Is  my  false  teaching,  that  is. 
this  teaching  that  is  contrary  to  our  interpretation  of  the  Script- 
ures, such  as  arises  from  the  weakness  of  the  human  under- 
standing? I  will  not  express  any  opinion  on  that  point.  Is  it 
that  they  are  not  likely  to  do  much  injury?  O  Moderator, 
what  have  you  been  hearing  as  to  the  injury  that  has  come  from 
my  false  teaching?  Why.  Moderator,  you  have  been  told  that 
the  vital  doctrines  of  our  blessed  gospel  are  utterly  uprooted 
by  my  false  teaching ;  you  are  told  that  the  federal  headship  of 
Adam  is  denied;  you  are  told  that  therefore  our  connexion 
with  the  Saviour  is  denied ;  you  are  told  that  the  Church  is 
likelv  to  be  rent.  O  Moderator,  is  teaching  attended  with  such 
effects  not  likely  to  do  much  injury?  That  your  future  minis- 
ters shall  be  taught  to  doubt  and  disbelieve  the  Bible,  to  deny 
the  supernatural,  is  that  not  likely  to  do  much  injury?  And 
then  as  to  the  other  qualifying  phrases,  let  us  see:  "carefully 
considered,  whether  they  strike  at  the  vitals  of  religion" — well, 
you  know  what  that  is  :  "and  are  industriously  spread"  :  I  can- 
not deny  the  industry,  if  my  teachings  are  false  :  and  whether 
they  are  false  or  true.  I  have  industriously  spread  them,  and  the 
Board  of  Directors  has  helped.  The  Board,  after  it  had  heard 
these  dangerous  teachings,  after  it  had  heard  all  that  I  had  to 
say  on  this  particular  subject,  and  in  this  direction,  requested 
that  they  should  be  widely  disseminated,  so  far  as  the  circula- 
tion of  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Review  extended;  and 
then — I  will  not  shield  myself  behind  the  Board  of  Directors 
and  its  request — I  printed  a  great  many  besides  and  widely 
disseminated  them.  I  printed  thousands  of  copies  in  a  religious 
journal  and  in  pamphlet  form  ;  I  cannot  shield  myself  under  the 
plea  that  I  have  not  widely  and  industriously  spread  the  poison 
that  some  of  you  profess  to  have  found  in  my  teachings.  Xo. 
Moderator ;  my  offence  of  teaching  that  which  is  contrary  to  the 
word  of  God  comes  under  the  very  gravest  specifications  that 


742 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


are  here  presented;  and  whether,  after  having  seen  this  so 
clearly,  it  is  heresy  or  not,  I  will  not  venture  to  express  an 
opinion.  If  such  an  offence  has  been  committed  by  me,  ought 
I  not  to  be  deposed?  If  I  thought  that  you,  Moderator,  had 
done  a  tithe  of  what  I  have  been  charged  with,  I  would  say, 
much  as  I  love  you,  that  you  ought  to  be  deposed ;  and  if  you 
think  deposition  is  not  warranted  by  the  enormity  of  my 
offence,  it  is  only  because  the  clear  working  of  the  mind  is 
obscured  by  the  loving  heart. 

And  then  it  is  to  be  observed  still  further  in  this  direction, 
Moderator,  that  this  is  not  my  first  offence.  For  all  these 
twenty-four  years — as  to  the  eight  years  before,  you  need  not 
count  them ;  when  I  was  serving  you  then  I  had  not  promised 
to  regard  the  Confession  of  Faith  as  the  expression  of  my 
faith — but  for  twenty-four  years  I  have  been,  according  to  the 
author  of  this  paper  [Dr.  Girardeau],  violating  my  vows.  As 
you  have  been  told  by  him,  it  was  too  late  when  in  my  Inaugu- 
ral Address  I  told  the  Board  what  my  views  were ;  it  was  then 
too  late,  I  had  already  signed  the  Confession ;  and  I  was  bound 
to  take  the  Confession  in  the  sense  that  has  been  pointed  out  to 
you  by  him,  as  teaching  that  the  whole  universe  was  created 
only  six  times  twenty-four  hours  before  Adam;  and  here  year 
after  year  I  have  violated  that  vow. 

Whether  or  not  there  might  be  any  propriety  in  pleading  a 
statute  of  limitations,  I  will  not  undertake  to  say. 

But  there  is  one  comforting  thought.  Is  it  a  comforting 
thought,  Moderator?  I  am  not  sure.  Misery  is  said  to  love 
company,  and  I  suppose  under  the  same  general  principle,  it 
may  be  a  comforting  thought  that  he  who  charges  you  with  a 
sin,  if  he  has  not  committed  it  along  with  you,  at  least  has  never 
reproved  your  sin  and  your  folly,  although  he  knew  it  all  the 
time.  The  author  of  this  paper  was  a  member  of  this  Synod, 
and  in  that  sense  one  of  the  controllers  of  this  Seminary, 
twenty-four  years  ago;  for  years  he  was  a  Director  in  that 
Seminary ;  for  eight  years  he  has  been  my  colleague :  and  yet  he 
has  allowed  me  to  go  on  in  sin  all  this  time  without  ever  having 
breathed  to  me  that  I  was  guilty  of  such  enormities.  As  he  has 
told  you,  we  have  taken  sweet  counsel  together  in  the  house  of 
God.    He  suffered  this  sin  in  me,  although  he  knew,  according 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


743 


to  what  he  has  been  saying  to  you  during  these  last  few  days, 
how  grievous  my  fault,  my  sin  against  God,  was  every  day, 

The  second  of  the  resolutions  in  the  minority  report  reads  as 
follows : 

"Resolved,  That  the  Synod  is  called  upon  to  decide,  not  upon 
the  question  whether  the  said  views  of  Dr.  Woodrow  contradict 
the  Bible  in  its  highest  and  absolute  sense,  but  upon  the  question 
whether  they  contradict  the  interpretations  of  the  Bible  by  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States." 

Moderator,  are  you  going  thus  to  publish  your  shame  to  the 
world  ?  For  is  it  not  a  shame  if  you  proclaim  that  the  meaning 
of  the  Bible  as  interpreted  by  your  standards  is  not  what  you 
believe  to  be  the  absolute  and  highest  sense  of  the  word  ?  Are 
you  going  to  say  to  the  world,  "We  don't  believe  our  stand- 
ards." "We  think  that  there  is  a  high  and  absolute  sense  which 
is  inconsistent  with  our  standards."  "When  we  preach  to  you 
and  interpret  to  you  the  word  of  God  according  to  the  stand- 
ards, we  are  preaching  and  interpreting  in  a  way  that  we  believe 
to  be  false."  Are  you  going  to  say  that?  Are  you  going  to 
put  that  on  record  ?  Is  not  what  I  have  intimated  in  these  last 
few  sentences  most  strictly  true  ?  Let  us  imagine  a  case,  Mod- 
erator :  there  are  a  number  of  your  flock  and  of  your  neighbors 
sitting  under  my  instructions  in  South  Carolina  College.  I 
teach  them  that  geology  is  true;  that  this  world  was  created 
more  than  a  week  before  Adam.  Suppose  that  one  of  these 
when  he  returns  to  your  pastoral  care,  anxious  for  the  salvation 
of  his  soul,  shall  come  to  you  and  ask  you  what  he  is  to  do. 
After  you  have  told  him  that  he  is  to  believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  and  he  will  be  saved,  he  tells  you,  "I  feel  that  that  is 
true;  I  believe  what  you  say;  but  don't  you  remember  that 
when  you  last  expounded  in  church  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis, 
you  taught  in  obedience  to  your  church  principles  and  to  your 
Confession  of  Faith,  that  the  world  was  created  only  six  days 
of  twenty-four  hours  each  before  Adam?"  You  look  incredu- 
lous and  are  not  willing  to  sit  as  the  original  of  that  picture, 
Moderator.  But  you  must ;  you  are  bound  from  what  you  have 
heard  on  this  floor  to  do  so;  if  you  undertake  to  explain  the 
first  chapter  of  Genesis  and  explain  it  in  any  other  way,  you  are 
told  that  you  are  violating  your  vows,  you  are  bound  to  teach 


744 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


that  very  thing;  and  so  the  young  man  goes  on:  "I  believed 
that  to  be  true  before ;  but  I  have  been  down  at  Columbia  for 
the  last  year  or  two,  and  I  have  been  taught  in  such  a  way  that 
I  have  come  to  believe  that  that  is  not  true,  and  consequently  I 
cannot  receive  this  Lord  Jesus  Christ  whom  you  urge  upon  me, 
because  the  book  that  contains  the  lessons  touching  him  is  one 
that  you  told  me  contradicts  the  truth  as  I  have  ascertained  it 
elsewhere."  And  so  the  poor  young  man,  your  lips  being 
sealed — if  you  open  them  to  say  that  that  is  not  the  meaning  of 
the  Bible,  you  are  violating  your  vows,  and  you  may  not  say 
it — so  the  poor  young  man  goes  away,  there  is  no  hope,  no 
Saviour  for  him,  and  he  is  lost.  Would  you  let  him  go  away  ? 
Wouldn't  you  call  him  back,  notwithstanding  all  that  has  been 
said  about  violating  your  vows,  and  teach  him  what  you  believe 
to  be  the  highest  and  absolute  sense  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures, 
and  say,  "The  Scriptures  don't  teach  that  lie;  the  Scriptures 
do  not  teach  that  this  world  is  only  6,000  years  old,  and  the 
Scriptures  are  true.  Come,  accept  the  Saviour  whom  they 
present,  without  fear  of  believing  two  contradictions  at  the 
same  time." 

This  is  the  inevitable  result  of  the  teaching  as  you  will  send 
it  forth  if  you  adopt  the  minority  report :  that  the  highest  and 
absolute  sense  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  is  different  from  that 
which  you  pledge  yourselves  to  teach  as  ministers  and  to  sup- 
port as  ruling  elders  in  the  Church  of  Christ.  Isn't  it?  Why, 
Moderator,  I  am  under  no  more  obligation  to  teach  received 
interpretations  than  you  are,  am  I?  Didn't  you  accept  the 
Confession  of  Faith  in  the  same  sense  in  which  I  did?  And 
are  you  going  to  charge  me  with  violating  my  vows,  are  you 
going  to  hold  me  up  as  a  perjurer  before  God  and  man.  if  I 
teach  the  highest  and  absolute  sense  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures 
as  I  can  find  it,  untrammelled  by  that  which,  you  yourself  being- 
judge,  is  not  true?  No,  Moderator,  I  am  bound  by  no  vows  by 
which  you  are  not  bound  in  substance;  and  if  you  can  justify 
yourself  in  holding  up  the  gospel  and  earnestly  entreating  the 
enlightened  youth  to  come  and  embrace  the  Saviour,  I  may 
teach  the  students  that  you  send  me  that  they  may  do  it — that 
they  must  do  it,  or  be  recreant  to  the  King  himself.    And  yet, 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


745 


Moderator,  you  are  asked  by  adopting  this  resolution  to  pro- 
claim to  the  world  that  these  two  things  are  entirely  different. 

In  the  next  place,  you  find  in  the  third  resolution  this : 

"That  the  declaration  of  the  Board  of  Directors  that  'the 
relations  subsisting'  " — observe,  Moderator — "that  'the  rela- 
tions subsisting  between  the  teachings  of  Scripture  and  the 
teachings  of  natural  science  are  plainly,  correctly,  and  satis- 
factorily set  forth'  in  Dr.  Woodrow's  Address,  was  inexpedient 
and  injudicious." 

Moderator,  observe  what  is  commended  here,  or  for  what 
approval  is  expressed.  It  is  not  said  that  anything  else  in  the 
Address  is  approved;  it  is  not  said  that  Dr.  Woodrow's  ideas 
about  evolution  are  approved ;  no,  there  is  not  a  syllable  about 
that;  but  that  the  relation  subsisting  between  natural  science 
and  revelation  is  non-contradiction,  because  the  Bible  does  not 
teach  natural  science,  that  that  is  plainly,  correctly,  and  satis- 
factorily set  forth.  The  Board  do  not  become  responsible  for 
any  of  my  scientific  errors ;  the  Board  knew  their  duty  too  well, 
as  it  seems  from  what  they  have  sent  here,  to  venture  to 
express  any  opinion  on  such  points.  It  is  true  there  is  an 
ambiguous  expression  in  one  of  their  resolutions :  "That  they 
are  not  prepared  to  concur,"  and,  if  you  choose,  you  may  press 
that,  as  has  been  done,  into  an  expression  of  non-concurrence 
or  disapprobation.  I  will  not  venture  to  express  any  opinion, 
although  I  may  just  say  privately  to  you,  Moderator,  that  I 
know  that  that  is  not  what  they  meant.  But  I  will  not  argue 
that  matter.  They  simply  express  in  this  resolution  their 
approbation  of  what  they  were  pleased  to  regard  as  a  demon- 
stration: that  the  relation  that  ought  to  be  regarded  as 
subsisting  between  the  teachings  of  Scripture  and  the  teachings 
of  natural  science  is  the  relation  of  non-contradiction,  and  that 
based  upon  the  proved  truth  that  the  Bible  does  not  teach 
natural  science. 

But  I  am  told  that  this  definition  of  the  relation  is  defective ; 
that  I  ought  not  to  have  said  that  the  relation  is  that  of  non- 
contradiction ;  I  ought  to  have  said  that  the  relation  is  to  be 
expressed  by  the  terms  "the  harmony  of  non-contradiction." 
It  is  not  non-contradiction ;  it  is  agreement,  it  is  unity,  it  is 
"harmony  of  non-contradiction."    Now,  Moderator,  I  don't 


746 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


care  much  for  refinements  of  language;  but  I  really,  soberly, 
honestly  do  not  think  that  that  expresses  the  true  idea  any 
better  than  the  simple  plain  words  that  I  used.  As  an  illustra- 
tion, we  may  inquire  what  are  the  relations  between  these  two 
expressions:  "General  Washington  commanded  the  American 
troops  during  the  Revolutionary  War  in  the  last  century ;" 
"Christopher  Columbus  several  centuries  ago  discovered 
America."  What  is  the  relation  now  between  these  two  state- 
ments that  have — I  was  going  to  say  no  connexion,  Moderator ; 
I  must  not  say  that ;  I  must  be  more  careful.  But  do  these  two 
statements  contradict  each  other  ?  Oh,  no ;  they  do  not  contra- 
dict. Well,  would  it  do  to  say  that  the  relation  is  that  of 
non-contradiction  ?  According  to  my  idea,  that  would  express 
it.  But  then  you  begin  to  criticise  me;  you  say,  "That  is 
defective.  George  Washington  and  Christopher  Columbus 
were  both  men;  isn't  that  harmony?  And  didn't  God  make 
them  both?  And  are  they  not  thus  taken  up  into  a  higher 
harmony  ?  You  ought  not  to  have  said  'non-contradiction' ; 
you  ought  to  have  said  that  those  two  expressions  are  related  to 
each  other  in  the  'harmony  of  non-contradiction.'  "  Now,  I 
can't  understand  that ;  that  weakness  of  comprehension  of  mine 
is  again  shown ;  it  is  too  deep  for  me,  or  something. 

But  the  basis  of  the  statement  commended  by  the  Board  is  a 
fact,  namely,  that  the  Bible  does  not  teach  natural  science.  I 
don't  intend  to  talk,  as  my  Brother  Martin  did,  of  the  law  of 
identity,  and  the  law  of  excluded  middle,  and  all  those  things. 
But  it  has  been  said  that  the  Bible  does  teach  natural  science.  If 
I  was  wrong  in  saying  that  the  Bible  does  not  teach  natural 
science,  then  the  opposite  of  that  must  be  to  some  extent  true, 
and  the  Bible  must  teach  natural  science.  And  this  proposition 
has  been  gravely  maintained  before  you.  Not  for  the  first 
time,  Moderator,  has  that  proposition  now  been  maintained. 
It  was  maintained  during  not  only  the  Middle  Ages,  but  the 
ages  before  the  Middle  Ages.  Yes  ;  and  it  is  maintained  now,  as 
you  heard  the  other  night,  down  into  the  latter  part  of  the  nine- 
teenth century.  The  Bible  teaches  natural  science,  Moderator ; 
why,  of  course  it  does.  For  example,  doesn't  the  Bible  speak 
about  the  stars,  and  doesn't  astronomy  speak  about  the  stars? 
And  since  they  both  speak  about  the  same  thing,  if  astronomy 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


747 


teaches  about  them,  isn't  the  Bible  also  teaching  about  them? 
Of  course,  therefore,  the  Bible  teaches  astronomy ;  and  I  might 
here  appeal  to  received  interpretations  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures, 
and  cite  these  in  proof  of  my  assertion.  And  then,  again,  with 
regard  to  geography,  with  regard  to  every  subject  that  you  can 
think  of  that  forms  the  subject-matter  of  natural  science  in  any 
of  its  aspects,  doesn't  the  Bible  speak  of  those  objects,  and  is 
not  the  Bible  therefore  teaching  natural  science?  That  is  the 
argument;  and  it  is  an  argument  that  has  convinced  the  world 
for  hundreds  and  hundreds  of  years,  and  therefore,  no  doubt, 
ought  to  be  spoken  of  with  the  utmost  respect.  But  now  let  us 
examine  it.  If  I  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  that  book 
is  lying  there,  am  I  stating  a  scientific  fact?  Am  I  teaching 
science  when  I  say  that  there  is  a  book  lying  on  the  Moderator's 
table?  Is  that  what  you  would  call  teaching  science?  I  sup- 
pose you  would  say,  "No;  that  is  not  teaching  science."  But 
now  suppose  when  I  go  back  to  Columbia,  in  lecturing  before 
my  class  in  physics,  there  is  a  book  lying  upon  my  desk,  and  I 
call  attention  to  it  as  to  its  form  and  its  color ;  I  take  hold  of  it 
and  attempt  to  raise  it  up,  and  find  that  I  am  resisted  by  some 
power — something  is  holding  it  down  when  I  try  to  raise  it; 
when  I  go  through  with  all  this,  and  thus  call  the  attention  of 
those  young  gentlemen  to  that  fact,  am  I  teaching  them  science 
or  not?  Yes;  I  am  teaching  science  then.  But  why?  Because 
I  say,  "There  is  a  book  lying  there"  ?  No,  Moderator ;  that  is 
not  the  reason ;  but  because  I  am  calling  their  attention  to  the 
relations  existing  between  that  book  and  other  things;  I  am 
speaking  of  the  forces  by  which  it  is  operated  upon;  I  am 
calling  attention  to  the  way  in  which  light  is  affected  by  it;  I 
am  presenting  an  orderly  view  of  the  relations  between  things, 
and  not  simply  stating  the  fact  of  their  existence;  and,  there- 
fore, in  this  latter  case  I  am  teaching  science ;  but  in  the  former, 
when  I  merely  asserted  the  book  was  lying  on  your  table,  I  was 
not;  was  I?  Was  I  teaching  science  then?  You  are  not  going 
to  say  so,  Moderator;  nor  are  you  going  to  pronounce  my 
analysis  of  the  relation  between  the  Sacred  Scriptures  and 
natural  science  false  on  the  ground  that  I  made  a  mistake  in 
saying  that,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  Bible  speaks  of 
man,  it  nevertheless  does  not  teach  human  anatomy.    You  are 


748 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


not  going  to  say  that  because  the  Bible  speaks  of  woman,  it 
therefore  discourses  on  the  science  of  loveliness  and  beauty ;  or 
that  because  it  speaks  of  the  earth,  therefore  it  teaches  geology. 
No,  Moderator ;  it  does  not  teach  any  of  these  things ;  it  does 
not  teach  anything  concerning  the  orderly  arrangement  of  the 
facts  which  constitute  a  science ;  and  it  is  to  no  purpose,  it  is 
misleading,  to  imagine  for  an  instant  that  natural  science  in  any 
of  its  aspects  is  taught  in  the  word  of  God. 

In  the  next  place,  Moderator,  I  recur  to  the  fourth  resolution, 
which  I  read  before  for  another  purpose.  I  need  not  now  say 
much  with  reference  to  it,  because  I  have  probably  already  said 
all  that  was  necessary.  "Resolved,  That  the  action  of  the 
Board  of  Directors  virtually  approving  the  inculcation  and 
defence  of  the  unverified  hypothesis  of  evolution" — Moderator, 
they  did  nothing  of  the  kind:  the  Board  of  Directors  neither 
virtually  nor  otherwise  approved  of  the  inculcation  and  defence 
of  the  unverified  hypothesis  of  evolution.  If  they  had,  they 
would  have  committed  that  sin  which  I  have  pointed  out  to 
you,  of  arrogating,  when  they  were  speaking  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord,  to  decide  that  which  the  Lord  had  not  committed  to  them ; 
they  would  have  been  expressing  an  opinion  that  a  hypothesis 
of  natural  science  was  true,  and  inasmuch  as  they  were  speak- 
ing as  representatives  of  the  Church  of  matters  most  closely 
connected  with  the  faith  of  the  Church,  they  might  not  utter 
any  sound  on  that  subject;  and,  Moderator,  neither  may  you. 
When  you  are  sitting  as  the  court  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  when  your 
utterances  are  utterances  touching  the  faith  of  the  Church,  you 
may  say  nothing  whatever  that  even  looks  in  that  direction. 
As  to  the  remaining  portion  of  this  resolution,  I  suppose  that  it 
is  not  necessary  for  me  to  speak  at  present;  I  will  confine 
myself  to  this  matter  of  the  "unverified  hypothesis."  I  have 
already  said  that  you  have  no  right  to  consider  it  at  all ;  but 
inasmuch  as  it  has  been  considered,  you  must  pardon  me  for 
following  the  example  of  those  who  have  been  so  largely  dis- 
cussing it. 

Now  I  ask  first,  Moderator,  how  do  you  know  that  it  is  an 
"unverified  hypothesis"?  Putting  aside  the  question  as  to 
whether  it  is  competent  to  you  as  representatives  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  to  consider  the  question,  how  do  you  know  that  it  is  an 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


749 


unverified  hypothesis?  Well,  the  answer  has  been  given 
already  by  those  who  have  preceded  me:  "You  think  so,  and 
have  told  us  in  your  Address,  and  you  have  told  the  world  so ; 
you  have  said  it  was  only  probable  in  your  opinion,  and  you  are 
supposed  to  know  something  about  it.  At  any  rate  you  have 
said  that,  and  you  have  no  right  to  object  to  our  calling  it  an 
'unverified  hypothesis,'  whatever  right  other  people  may  have/' 
But,  Moderator,  I  was  called  on  for  my  opinion  in  that  case  as 
an  expert;  I  was  appealed  to  to  state  what  I  knew  myself — 
what  I  had  found  out  by  examining  into  the  evidence  person- 
ally. I  was  not  giving  my  opinion;  I  was  called  on  to  state 
what  I  knew,  and  that  is  all  I  know  on  the  subject  up  to  the 
present  time.  I  cannot  say  that  I  know  evolution,  within  the 
limits  that  I  have  applied,  to  be  true;  but  I  have  followed  the 
various  lines  of  evidence  connected  with  the  matter  during 
these  past  years  so  far  that  I  can  say  that  it  is  probably  true. 
And  I  do  say  it ;  I  don't  conceal  it ;  I  have  no  concealed  opin- 
ions, notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  said  about  my  trying  to 
teach  without  letting  the  Church  know.  But  if  you  ask  me 
with  regard  to  the  evidence  on  this  point  that  may  possibly 
carry  conviction  to  others,  if  you  ask  me  in  any  other  direction 
on  this  matter,  I  would  have  to  say  that  the  answer  must  be 
quite  different.  But  before  undertaking  to  give  an  answer,  let 
me  ask  how  you  are  to  find  out  when  a  hypothesis  is  verified. 
Of  course  one  way  is  by  examining  into  the  evidence  yourself. 
Well,  Moderator,  I  know  that  you  are  not  gray  yet,  and  I  am 
becoming  so  ;  but  you  have  not,  with  your  other  duties,  years 
enough,  however  long  your  life  may  be — and  may  It  be  very 
long — you  have  not  years  enough  to  inquire  into  the  evidence 
and  form  an  opinion  of  your  own.  And  what  then?  Why, 
take  the  concurrent  testimony  of  those  who  have,  you  say. 
Just  so  soon,  we  are  told  over  and  over  again,  as  the  experts 
will  tell  us  that  this  hypothesis  is  verified,  why,  then  we  will 
believe  it.  But  some  of  you  refuse  to  do  that.  Well,  now, 
Moderator,  we  want  to  be  consistent,  do  we  not?  We  do  not 
wrant  to  apply  one  rule  in  one  direction  and  another  in  another. 
How  are  we  to  find  out  the  truth  concerning  the  Scriptures? 
First,  what  are  the  Scriptures  ?  I  suppose  if  I  were  an  outsider, 
and  should  come  to  you,  I  would  learn  from  what  I  have  been 


750 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


listening  to  here  during  the  past  few  days,  that  there  is  a  good 
deal  of  difference  of  opinion  among  you  about  the  Scriptures ; 
and  I  might  learn  that  though  you  have  been  studying  them  for 
a  good  many  years,  you  don't  agree  as  to  what  the  Scriptures 
are.  Now,  I  might  say  to  you,  You  first  agree  among  your- 
selves, and  then  come  and  tell  me,  and  I  will  take  your  opinion 
as  the  opinion  of  experts.  But  you  don't  agree  yet,  and  I  will 
not  accept  your  opinion  that  the  Scriptures  are  true ;  I  find  that 
you  don't  agree  even  as  to  what  the  Scriptures  are :  whether  it 
is  the  word  of  God  which  constitutes  the  Scriptures,  or  whether 
it  is  only  that  the  Scriptures  contain  the  word  of  God,  and 
containing  the  word  of  God  contain  much  else  that  is  not  the 
word  of  God.  I  find  that  large  numbers  of  professing  Christ- 
ians exclude  much  that  you  ask  me  to  believe  as  the  word  of 
God.  Agree  among  yourselves  before  you  ask  me  to  receive 
the  Scriptures.  After  you  have  found  out  what  they  are,  I 
come  to  you  and  ask  you  what  is  the  truth  with  regard  to  this 
matter  of  predestination?  I  hear  a  great  deal  about  it;  I  come 
to  you  as  experts ;  you  have  had  time  to  study  the  question ;  I 
have  not  much  time,  and  I  don't  know  anything  about  it.  Is 
your  Methodist  brother  there  right,  or  are  you  right?  He 
doesn't  believe  it ;  you  do  believe  it.  He  is  as  pious  as  you  are ; 
he  loves  the  Scriptures  as  much  as  you  do ;  the  word  and  Spirit 
of  God  will  enlighten  him  as  much  as  they  will  enlighten  you, 
for  anything  that  you  know  to  the  contrary.  And  yet  he  comes 
and  tells  me  that  the  doctrine  of  predestination  is  not  true,  and 
you  tell  me  it  is  true.  Now  settle  your  difficulties  among  your- 
selves before  you  come  to  me  about  this  matter ;  just  so  long  as 
I  can  quote  respectable  witnesses  on  this  matter  contradictory 
to  your  views,  your  views  are  not  worth  anything  to  me.  There 
must  be  absolute  unanimity.  And  so  I  might  go  down  the 
whole  list  of  doctrines.  What  is  the  absolute,  divinely 
appointed  form  of  church  government?  Is  there  any?  What 
is  the  proper  mode  of  performing  the  rite  of  baptism?  If  I 
put  it  to  vote  here  in  this  city  of  Greenville  and  in  this  State  of 
South  Carolina,  will  I  get  an  answer  from  the  majority  that 
will  carry  conviction  to  you?  Why,  our  Baptist  brethren  will 
out-vote  you  ten  to  one.  And  yet  are  not  Dr.  Broadus  and 
Drs.  Manly,  Basil  and  Charles,  and  Dr.  Boyce,  and  all  the  other 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


751 


Baptist  worthies  whom  T  might  name — are  they  not  as  learned 
as  you,  and  don't  they  love  the  Scriptures  as  much,  and  are 
they  not  as  likely  to  be  right  as  you?  And  yet  you  will  not 
believe  them.  You  cannot  settle  this  matter  by  votes.  You 
cannot  look  for  substantial  unanimity,  yourselves  being  judges ; 
and  if  you  will  not  apply  this  rule  in  one  case,  you  are  not 
going  to  be  dishonest  enough  to  insist  upon  applying  it  in 
another.  And  then  with  regard  to  other  matters.  Is  the 
Copernican  system  a  proved  hypothesis?  Is  it  true  that  this 
world  is  a  sphere,  and  that  it  rotates  on  its  axis  ?  Why,  Mod- 
erator, I  was  told  by  one  of  your  number  on  our  coming  here 
the  other  day  that  he  knew  of  a  most  devotedly  excellent 
Christian  man  who  did  not  believe  that.  Well,  he  had  as  good 
a  chance  to  know  perhaps  as  I.  I  know  a  respected  and  promi- 
nent citizen  of  Columbia  who  scouts  the  idea  of  the  world's 
being  a  sphere:  "Why,  if  it  was  a  sphere  and  turned  on  its 
axis,  we'd  spill  out."  Although  I  might  multiply  them  almost 
indefinitely,  I  will  not  add  more  than  one  other  illustration. 
Some  thirty-four  years  ago  I  spent  a  delightful  evening  in 
company  with  Judge  Ezekiel  Pickens,  whose  name  I  give 
because  I  dare  say  that  some  of  his  relatives  may  live  in  this 
region,  and  who  was  a  prominent  Judge  in  Alabama,  where  I 
was  residing  at  the  time.  He  spent  the  whole  evening  in  pre- 
senting in  the  most  ingenious  manner,  and  to  not  a  few  present 
there  in  a  convincing  manner,  arguments  to  prove  that  all  that 
had  been  said  with  regard  to  the  rotundity  of  the  earth  and  the 
rotation  of  the  earth  upon  its  axis,  was — to  use  the  expression 
that  has  been  here  repeated  so  often — an  unverified  hypothesis. 
Now,  Moderator,  I  can  quote  these  cases  when  you  want  to 
prove  to  me  that  that  is  a  verified  hypothesis. 

Now,  without  going  further  in  that  direction,  let  me  ask  you 
what  are  the  facts  as  to  the  opinion  of  experts  touching  evolu- 
tion? I  do  not  like  any  more  than  is  absolutely  necessary  to 
refer  to  myself  in  any  way ;  but  in  this  case  I  must  be  allowed 
to  stand  here  as  a  witness  for  the  time  being,  if  indeed  I  can 
combine  the  characteristics  of  witness  and  prisoner  ;  as  I  am  not 
prisoner  formally,  perhaps  you  will  let  me  be  witness.  Now, 
Moderator,  what  is  the  state  of  opinion  touching  this  question 
of  evolution,  within  the  limits  that  I  have  applied  in  the 


752 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Address  which  I  delivered  ?  Well,  Moderator,  I  suppose  that  if 
any  persons  are  likely  to  know  about  these  things,  it  will  be 
college  professors  who  have  been  studying  the  question  at  issue 
all  their  lives  whether  long  or  short.  Beginning  in  the  far 
northeast  at  Harvard  University,  there  are  the  distinguished 
Professor  of  Botany,  Asa  Gray,  and  a  number  of  younger  men 
associated  with  him  ;  and  near  by,  Alexander  Agassiz,  the  son 
of  the  distinguished  Louis  Agassiz,  and  very  like  his  father  in 
the  extent  of  his  knowledge,  however  unlike  him  in  his  belief 
on  this  particular  subject — all  evolutionists.  Coming,  without 
exhausting  the  number  at  Cambridge  and  Boston,  to  the  univer- 
sity at  Providence,  Brown  University,  there  is  the  son  of  a 
Congregational  minister,  Prof.  Packard,  who  is  a  pronounced 
evolutionist.  At  Yale  there  is  the  venerable  Danax  and  there 
is  the  learned  Marsh,  and  Verrill,  and  Brewer,  and  the  younger 
Dana — all  evolutionists.  And,  let  me  say  in  passing,  not  a 
single  anti-evolutionist.  At  the  Academy  of  Natural  Sciences 
in  Philadelphia  there  are  the  earnest  Profs.  Heilprin,  and  Cope 
and  Leidy  and  Lewis;  they  are  all  evolutionists,  and  there  is 
not  an  anti-evolutionist.  Perhaps  I  ought  not  to  speak  of 
Johns  Hopkins,  as  we  have  been  told  [by  President  Shepherd] 
that  the  learned  Professor  of  Biology  there  is  an  infidel;  but 
Prof.  Brooks,  I  don't  know  whether  he  is  an  infidel  or  not,  and 
it  does  not  matter — he  is  an  evolutionist.  While  I  cannot  say 
of  my  own  personal  knowledge,  I  am  told  that  in  the  University 
of  Virginia  the  same  doctrine  is  taught.  May  I  go  on?  What 
does  Prof.  Blake  teach  by  your  authority  in  Davidson  College? 
If  I  make  a  mistake,  I  hope  that  any  one  who  knows  that  I 
make  a  mistake  will  correct  me.  He  teaches  the  nebular 
hypothesis  as  probably  true.  And  while  his  colleague,  Prof. 
Martin,  does  not  believe  in  evolution,  he  does  believe  what  I 
believe,  that  belief  in  evolution  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
belief  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  as  he  has  written  to  me  himself. 
And  so,  when  we  come  within  thirty  miles  of  this  place,  I  am 
told  that  Prof.  DuPre,  the  ardent  young  scientific  professor  at 
Wofford  College,  teaches  it.  I  am  not  informed  as  to  the  belief 
of  Prof.  Purinton  who  adorns  the  University  in  this  place,  and 
so  I  say  nothing  with  regard  to  him.  I  know  that  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  Georgia  evolution  is  taught.    I  know — shall  I  tell 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


753 


it? — that  the  Synods  of  Nashville  and  Alabama  and  other 
Synods  of  the  Southwest  are  teaching  evolution  at  the  South- 
western Presbyterian  University.  I  know  that  the  Synod  of 
Kentucky  is  teaching  evolution  at  the  Central  University ;  and 
so  I  might  go  on ;  but  this  surely  is  enough.  Along  the  whole 
line  of  these  colleges  which  I  have  named  I  have  failed  to  find 
an  exception. 

Now  as  to  the  belief  of  naturalists  in  foreign  lands.  When  I 
was  in  feeble  health  some  twelve  years  ago,  in  order  that  I 
might  recover  I  went  away  from  this  country.  I  spent  a  por- 
tion of  my  time  in  the  enlightened  capital  of  Saxony,  where  I 
was  warmly  received  and  invited  to  become  a  member  of  the 
scientific  association  of  that  city.  I  visited  the  Scientific 
Association  of  Switzerland  in  1872,  and  I  spent  days  in  con- 
versing with  my  fellow-members  upon  this  very  subject.  In 
1873  I  had  the  pleasure  of  attending  the  meeting  of  the  German 
Naturalists'  Association  at  Wiesbaden,  and  there  too  I  pursued 
my  inquiries.  Amongst  others  I  had  the  pleasure  of  making 
the  acquaintance  of  one  who  has  been  continually  named  during 
this  discussion,  Prof.  Virchow,  with  whom  I  conversed  freely 
touching  this  very  subject.  In  London  I  had  the  opportunity 
of  attending  the  Geological  Society  and  the  Anthropological 
Society,  and  making  the  acquaintance  of  the  distinguished 
naturalists  in  those  great  Societies.  Now,  Moderator,  do  you 
want  to  know  what  I  found?  I  didn't  then  believe  evolution 
to  be  true;  I  believed  it  to  be  not  true,  and  I  wanted — we  all 
want,  don't  we? — I  wanted  to  be  upheld  and  strengthened  in 
my  opposition ;  and  I  was  trying  to  find  all  the  help  I  could  in 
that  direction.  So  far  as  the  capital  of  Saxony  was  concerned^ 
the  Professor  of  Comparative  Anatomy,  in  whose  laboratory  I 
was  dissecting  day  after  day,  did  not  believe  in  evolution.  The 
Professor  of  Geology,  distinguished  highly  in  that  kingdom, 
was  in  doubt.  But  every  other  naturalist  in  that  association, 
so  far  as  I  could  learn,  except  those  two  and  myself,  were 
decided  evolutionists.  At  the  meeting  which  I  have  referred 
to  at  Freiburg,  in  Switzerland,  I  found  no  anti-evolutionist 
except  one  Presbyterian  minister,  who  had  paid  a  little  atten- 
tion to  science  and  so  had  become  a  member  of  that  association ; 
but  he  had  paid  only  a  little  attention  to  science.    Whether  or 


48 — w 


754 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


not  there  was  any  connexion  between  that  fact  and  his  not 
believing  in  evolution,  I  am  not  going  to  express  an  opinion. 
At  ihe  meeting  of  the  German  naturalists  at  Wiesbaden,  the 
subject  having  been  brought  prominently  before  the  association 
by  Prof.  Oscar  Schmidt,  who  delivered  on  that  occasion  a 
lecture  that  contained  much  that  was  offensive  and  untenable, 
the  greatest  interest  was  felt.  Every  one  was  ablaze  with 
regard  to  the  matter :  and  yet,  though  I  prosecuted  my  inquiries 
with  great  diligence,  I  could  not  find  a  single  member  who 
agreed  with  me.  From  my  conversations  with  Prof.  Virchow. 
I  feel  sure  he  would  be  greatly  amused  and  amazed  if  he  knew 
how  he  has  been  quoted  during  this  controversy  as  an  anti- 
evolutionist. 

I  beg  pardon  of  North  Carolina  for  neglecting  to  speak  of  the 
University  of  that  State  in  the  enumeration  that  I  was  giving  a 
little  while  ago.  If  I  am  wrong,  I  hope  that  the  brother  or  the 
father  of  Prof.  Holmes  will  correct  me:  in  the  University  of 
North  Carolina  evolution  is  taught  by  the  eager  young  pro- 
fessor from  Laurens. 

Rev.  Z.  L.  Holmes:  "I  think,  sir,  that  he  is  undertaking  to 
examine  the  subject,  and  I  am  trying  to  bolster  him  up  as  much 
as  I  can." 

Rev.  Dr.  Woodrow:  I  would  not  have  referred  to  him  but 
for  the  fact  that  I  knew  that  I  could  by  this  inquiry  obtain 
respecting  his  teachings  immediate  information. 

I  had  begun  to  think  that  I  must  really  have  been  mistaken 
in  supposing  the  great  body  of  naturalists  the  world  over  to  be 
evolutionists.  I  thought  that  perhaps  the  constant  reiteration 
of  the  statement  that  naturalists  generally  rejected  evolution, 
or  at  least  regarded  it  as  a  mere  unverified  hypothesis,  might 
have  some  foundation.  Hence,  besides  making  the  inquiries  to 
which  I  have  referred,  I  have  continued  them  recently  on  this 
side  of  the  Atlantic.  During  a  recent  visit  to  Philadelphia, 
where  I  met  many  members  of  the  American  Association  for 
the  Advancement  of  Science,  I  asked  each  of  them  to  what 
extent  evolution  was  received.  On  being  invariably  told  it  was 
almost  universally  believed,  I  asked  if  they  knew  of  any  excep- 
tion among  leading  naturalists  in  America;  the  answer  was 
always  the  same:  "Yes,  one,  Sir  William  Dawson,  of  Mont- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


755 


real."  During  the  same  visit,  I  met  a  member  of  the  British 
Association ;  and  to  my  stereotyped  question.  I  received  the 
answer  that  evolution  is  accepted  as  true  by  nearly  all 
British  naturalists.  In  France.  I  have  been  able  to  hear  of  but 
one  anti-evolutionist  who  is  eminent,  the  distinguished  De 
Quatrefages. 

Wishing  to  gain  all  the  information  I  could  on  this  subject,  a 
few  days  before  coming  here  I  wrote  to  Prof.  William  H. 
Brewer,  of  Yale  College,  a  Christian  gentleman,  my  former 
fellow-student,  as  I  knew  his  opportunities  of  knowing  the 
views  of  scientific  men.  I  knew  that  he  had  been  engaged  in 
various  geological  surveys  and  other  scientific  work  in  the  field, 
and  thus  had  become  intimate  with  many  working  naturalists ; 
and  as  Professor  in  Yale  and  member  of  scientific  associations 
he  must  know  many  others.  Hence  I  wrote  to  him  to  inquire 
what  proportion  of  active  working  naturalists  believe  in  evolu- 
tion, and  also  requested  him  to  give  the  names  of  such  as  do 
and  such  as  do  not.  as  far  as  might  be  convenient.  I  will  read 
his  reply : 

Yours  of  the  18th  is  just  received.  You  ask  my  views  on 
two  questions : 

"1st.  What  proportion  of  the  working  naturalists  of  this 
country  and  abroad  believe  in  evolution  ? 

"2d.  The  names  of  as  many  as  do  so,  as  far  as  your  patience 
will  allow  you  to  write  them?" 

I  know  of  but  one  eminent  naturalist  in  America  who  does 
not  "believe  in  evolution" — that  is  the  venerable  Sir  William 
Dawson,  of  Canada,  who  is  an  illustrious  geologist  and  a  good 
man. 

Precisely  what  his  belief  is.  I  do  not  understand;  but  my 
impression  is  that  while  he  does  not  believe  in  evolution,  he 
holds  that  the  idea  of  species  that  was  held  thirty  years  ago  is 
not  tenable,  and  our  conception  of  them  must  be  greatly  modi- 
fied. 

When  I  speak  of  naturalists,  I  include  all  geologists,  whether 
structural  or  experts  in  palaeontology- :  and  from  my  earlier 
work  in  the  field  and  later  associations  here  and  with  societies, 
I  have  a  somewhat  wide  personal  acquaintance  with  this  class 
in  this  country,  less  so  in  Europe. 

I  have  an  impression  that  in  Europe  a  few  naturalists  are  still 
left,  all  old  men.  who  have  not  accepted  the  modern  doctrine  of 
evolution,  but  who  they  are,  and  what  their  present  belief  is, 
I  do  not  know.    \\ "hile  I  can  repeat  many  names  of  eminence 


756 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


there  who  believe  in  evolution,  I  cannot  cite  one  who  does  not, 
although  I  think  some  still  exist. 

Among  my  personal  (scientific)  acquaintances  there  is  a 
wide  range  of  belief  and  view  as  to  the  details — as  to  the  com- 
parative force  of  several  causes,  as  to  the  paths  along  which 
lines  of  evolution  took  place,  but  this  does  not  affect  belief  as 
to  the  general  fact  of  evolution. 

I  think  that  the  working  naturalists  of  the  world  are  as  sub- 
stantially agreed  as  to  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  of  evolution  as 
the  educated  men  of  the  world  are  as  to  the  rotundity  of  the 
earth. 

I  am  a  member  of  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences.  Of  the 
ninety-four  living  members  (I  have  run  through  the  list),  I 
am  acquainted  personally  with  thirty-two  naturalists  who 
believe  in  evolution  (I  exclude  from  this  all  the  mathema- 
ticians, astronomers,  physicists,  engineers,  etc.,  and  all  others 
whose  belief  I  have  no  knowledge  of),  and  I  do  not  know  of 
any  member,  naturalist  or  otherwise,  who  denies  it ;  but  then  I 
have  no  positive  knowledge  as  to  the  beliefs  of  a  number  of  the 
members. 

As  I  look  down  the  first  page  of  the  list,  I  find  the  naturalists 
(including  geologists)  Alex.  Agassiz,  Spencer  F.  Baird,  W.  K. 
Brooks,  W.  H.  Brewer,  C.  Comstock,  E.  D.  Cope,  E.  Coues, 
J.  D.  Dana,  C.  Dutton,  W.  G.  Farlow,  G.  K.  Gilbert,  F.  N.  Gill, 
Asa  Gray,  and  so  on  down  the  list. 

There  is  an  annual  "Scientific  Directory,"  or  "Naturalist's 
Directory,"  published  at  Salem,  and  some  years  ago  I  looked 
over  the  list  as  then  constituted  and  marked  the  names  of  all 
those  scientists  whose  religious  belief  I  had  any  knowledge  of, 
and  I  was  struck  with  the  large  number  who  were  connected 
with  some  evangelical  Church — I  then  thought  and  still  think 
a  larger  proportion  by  far  than  would  be  found  to  be  the  case 
with  a  similar  list  of  lawyers  or  doctors. 

I  have  among  my  scientific  acquaintances  devout  and  zealous 
Methodists,  Baptists,  Presbyterians,  Congregationalists,  Epis- 
copalians, etc.,  etc.,  who  believe  in  evolution,  and  who  are  no 
more  disturbed  in  their  religious  faith  by  this  belief  than  by  the 
belief  that  the  earth  is  round,  the  sun  the  centre  of  the  solar 
system,  or  the  world  more  than  6,000  years  old. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  doctrine  of  evolution  is  now  as  surely 
and  firmly  established  as  either  of  the  three  doctrines  (dogmas 
if  you  choose)  I  have  named.  Many  of  my  friends  will  not 
discuss  it  now,  except  as  they  might  discuss  either  of  the  other 
three  beliefs  named,  and  it  seems  to  me  most  unfortunate  that 
the  clergy  should  be  the  last  and  most  reluctant  to  accept,  even 
as  an  intellectual  belief,  a  doctrine  so  firmly  placed,  and  so 
generally  accepted  by  other  classes  of  educated  men. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


757 


As  a  teacher,  I  see  much  of  young  men,  and  know  their  diffi- 
culties. Some  years  ago  I  had  much  experience  with  the 
rougher  elements  of  society,  when  at  work  on  explorations  and 
surveys ;  and  my  belief  is  that  this  attitude  of  so  many  good 
clergymen  against  scientific  progress  is  a  more  powerful  factor 
in  the  turning  of  the  masses  away  from  religious  teaching 
which  so  many  are  deploring,  than  all  the  writings  and  all  the 
arguments  of  all  the  infidels  in  Christendom. 

You  and  I  are  both  old  enough  to  have  seen  its  sad  effects  in 
the  discussion  of  the  geological  question.  That  is  now  settled ; 
the  evil  appears  to  be  renewed  in  the  matter  of  evolution,  with 
the  same  sad  results. 

He  ends  with  the  prayer  that  this  Synod  may  be  kept  from 
similar  folly. 

Now,  Moderator,  I  have  given  you  the  evidence  on  this  point 
fully,  and  as  clearly  as  I  could,  setting  before  you  the  sources 
of  my  information  even  at  the  risk  of  doing  that  which  was 
immodest. 

But  have  we  not  much  evidence  on  the  other  side  ?  Haven't 
we  heard  a  great  deal  of  Sir  William  Thomson's  opposition  to 
evolution  ?  And  is  he  not  a  distinguished  scientific  man  ?  And 
ought  not  his  testimony  to  be  decisive  ?  Undoubtedly  he  is  one 
of  the  most  eminent  men  of  science  living.  But  on  a  question 
of  natural  history,  is  he  an  expert?  The  sphere  of  his  great- 
ness lies  outside  of  that  department  of  science.  He  has  studied 
mathematics,  the  molecular  constitution  of  matter,  electricity 
and  heat,  and  various  other  physical  subjects ;  and  in  these 
departments  of  knowledge  he  is  a  master.  But  he  has  not  so 
studied  natural  history,  and  there  he  cannot  speak  with 
authority.  But  let  us  suppose  that  he  is  here  a  competent  wit- 
ness, and  let  us  hear  what  he  said  some  years  ago.  When  he 
was  delivering  an  address  before  the  British  Association,  he 
gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  way  life  originated  on  this  planet 
was  that  it  was  brought  hither  by  meteorites  wandering  through 
space  and  falling  on  the  earth,  and  that  all  present  life  came 
from  that  source.  Now,  as  anti-evolutionists  have  introduced 
Sir  William  as  their  witness,  they  are  bound  to  accept  his  testi- 
mony. Will  not  Judge  Walsh  there  tell  you  that  that  is  the 
rule?  So  here  we  have  a  person  introduced  as  a  witness  to 
prove  the  orthodox  belief,  maintaining  evolution  by  the  most 
fanciful  ideas  ever  uttered  in  relation  to  it.    Why,  Darwin 


758 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


himself  was  nearer  the  orthodox  belief  than  that.  He  held  that 
God  did  create  immediately  some  things — the  first  forms  of  life 
on  the  earth;  but  this  good  Presbyterian  elder,  Sir  William 
Thomson,  tells  us  that  he  thinks  it  most  probable  that  the  first 
germs  of  life  were  brought  by  these  wandering  meteorites 
wildly  careering  through  space ! 

Another  anti-evolutionist  witness  is  that  prince  of  naturalists, 
the  great  Louis  Agassiz,  my  friend  and  my  teacher.  We  are 
told  that  he  pronounced  the  theory  of  evolution  a  scientific 
blunder ;  and  surely  he  knew  if  anybody  did.  Well,  if  we  must 
receive  his  testimony  as  conclusive  on  one  point  in  natural  his- 
tory, we  must  receive  it  as  equally  trustworthy  in  all.  As 
believers  in  the  Bible,  we  are  much  interested  in  the  question  of 
the  unity  of  the  human  race.  Ask  this  master  what  he  believes 
on  that  point.  He  replies:  "All  the  members  of  the  human 
family  belong  to  a  single  species."  "Oh,"  you  will  say,  "that 
is  all  right;  that  is  just  what  we  believe."  But  he  would  stop 
you  before  you  rejoiced  too  much.  "Yes,"  he  adds,  "a  single 
species,  but  that  species  consists  of  many  varieties ;  and  each  of 
these  varieties  had  entirely  different  ancestors.  There  is  the 
red  man,  the  negro,  the  white  man,  and  the  Chinaman ;  and  I 
know  too  much  about  natural  history  to  believe  that  all  of  these 
could  come  from  the  same  source.  Instead  of  a  single  pair 
being  created  as  you  think,  there  must  have  been  hundreds  of 
negroes  created  at  the  same  time,  and  hundreds  of  Chinese,  and 
hundreds  of  white  men.  There  is  no  such  thing  as  unity  of 
origin."  That  is  what  he  would  tell  you.  But  I  am  not  going 
to  accept  the  testimony  of  even  so  eminent  a  man  as  conclusive 
against  that  of  the  cloud  of  witnesses  I  have  produced  before 
you,  when  I  find  him  going  so  far  astray  and  teaching  what  I 
know  to  be  not  true. 

Now  are  you  going  to  commit  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina 
and  the  whole  Church  to  the  assertion  that  evolution  is  an 
"unverified  hypothesis"  on  such  evidence?  Is  that  to  be  the 
belief  of  a  body  that  has  no  business  to  have  any  scientific 
belief?  If  you  are  going  to  have  a  scientific  belief  in  this 
matter,  it  would  be  well  perhaps  to  study  the  subject  somewhat 
longer,  lest  you  meet  the  fate  which  has  befallen  every  council 
in  every  part  of  the  Christian  Church  which  has  ever  under- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


759 


taken  to  formulate  its  belief  with  regard  to  natural  science  or 
natural  history  from  the  earliest  ages  down  to  the  present  time. 
I  know  that  the  Holy  Office  of  1633  has  its  defenders  and 
upholders  upon  this  floor;  but  if  you  can  consistently  with  a 
proper  sense  of  duty,  abstain  from  putting  yourselves  in  the 
same  category,  surely  you  will  do  it. 

The  next  allegation  in  the  report  against  the  hypothesis  is 
that  it  is  "contrary  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  by 
our  Church  and  to  her  prevailing  and  recognised  views."  Now 
what  is  the  interpretation  by  our  Church  on  this  subject?  I 
have  read  to  you  what  it  is  so  far  as  the  Confession  of  Faith 
and  the  Larger  Catechism  are  concerned. 

So  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  discover,  that  is  all  there  is  in 
our  standards  on  the  subject.  Do  the  Confession  and  Cate- 
chism teach  anything  concerning  the  mode  of  the  creation  of 
man  ?  Do  they  say  whether  the  creation  was  mediate  or  imme- 
diate? I  presume  that  no  one  will  say  they  do.  But  this 
report  does  not  confine  itself  to  "the  interpretation  of  the  Script- 
ures by  our  Church,"  (to  be  found  in  the  standards  of  the 
Church  and  only  there),  but  speaks  of  "her  prevailing  and 
recognised  views."  What  are  they  ?  Well,  I  suppose  it  would 
be  the  prevailing  opinion  of  the  prominent  Christian  men,  the 
ministers  throughout  the  Church.  If  I  desired  to  find  out 
what  were  the  prevailing  ideas  or  opinions  concerning  any 
branch  or  department  of  learning,  wouldn't  I  ask  the  leading 
men  in  those  departments?  If  I  had  wanted  twenty-five  years 
ago  to  find  out  the  prevailing  views  concerning  geology, 
wouldn't  I  have  gone  to  that  class  of  men?  When  scarcely 
more  than  a  lad,  I  became  Professor  of  Geology  in  Oglethorpe 
University,  I  found  that  the  honored  President,  Dr.  Talmage, 
held  the  view  that  the  world  was  only  six  thousand  years  old, 
and  that  the  Scriptures  so  taught.  That  was  the  prevailing 
view  there.  When  I  came  to  Columbia  I  found  that  the  loved 
Thornwell  held  the  same  views,  and  so  did  his  successor.  They 
knew  better  than  I,  didn't  they  ?  If  I  were  to  go  to  the  Union 
Theological  Seminary,  I  know  that  a  few  years  ago  the  three 
senior  professors  there  believed  just  as  Dr.  Talmage  did;  but 
it  isn't  worth  while  to  go  any  farther  in  this  enumeration,  after 
giving  such  names  as  these.    Well,  those  were  the  "prevailing 


760 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


and  recognised  views"  of  our  Church  twenty-five  years  ago. 
But  because  these  good  and  learned  men  believed  thus,  and  I 
didn't,  was  I  disbelieving  the  truth  of  the  Scriptures?  Their 
judgment,  great,  good,  and  learned  as  they  were  and  are, 
couldn't  affect  the  opinion  of  any  one  who  looked  into  the  sub- 
ject for  himself.  If  you  wish  to  go  farther —  [Dr.  Adger 
here  moved  for  an  adjournment.] 

Prof.  Woodrow  :  I  am  in  the  hands  of  the  Synod ;  but  as 
my  life,  my  ecclesiastical  life,  is  at  stake,  I  know  you  will  not 
be  angry  with  me  if  I  do  weary  you  a  little  in  trying  to  show 
that  I  do  not  deserve  to  die.  But  I  feel  that  there  are  a  great 
many  of  those  who  are  present  whose  home  duties  will  not 
allow  them  to  remain  much  longer ;  therefore  I  would  beg  that 
those  who  desire  to  withdraw  should  now  do  so. 

[Some  persons  having  retired,  the  speaker  continued.] 
Thanking  you  for  the  rest  allowed  me,  permit  me  to  say 
(and  I  shall  omit  as  much  as  I  possibly  can  of  what  I  intended 
to  say)  that  much  of  the  difficulty  on  this  subject  arises  from 
the  failure  to  perceive  that  evolution  and  Scripture  do  not 
stand  in  opposition  to  one  another.  I  know  that  it  is  supposed 
that  if  one  believes  in  evolution  in  one  sense,  he  must 
believe  it  in  every  sense.  No  argument  I  think  is  necessary  to 
prove  that  that  is  not  the  case.  Is  it  true  that  what  Haeckel 
believes  as  to  evolution,  I  must  likewise  believe?  Must  I 
believe  what  Herbert  Spencer  and  Darwin  believe,  because  I 
have  declared  that  I  regard  something  else  as  probably  true? 
So  you  have  been  told ;  and  has  it  not  been  proved  by  quotations 
from  the  Southwestern  Presbyterian  to  show  that  whatever 
Darwin  believes  I  also  believe?  You  have  heard  seven  reasons 
given,  drawn  from  that  source,  to  prove  that  what  Darwin 
believed  I  believe;  although  I  have  kept  saying,  "I  don't"  "I 
don't,"  and  I  say  so  still,  the  seven  reasons  of  the  Southwestern 
Presbyterian  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  I  ask  you  if  it 
is  fair,  or  right,  to  attribute  to  me  views  that  I  utterly  disclaim  ? 
I  do  not  say  that  this  is  done  through  either  inability  to  under- 
stand or  a  desire  to  misinterpret;  but  I  ask  if  it  is  fair  or  just 
that  I  should  be  held  responsible  for  views  that  I  absolutely 
abhor,  and  which  I  have  proved  over  and  over  again  that  I  do 
not  hold?    I  know  and  knew  the  difficulties  surrounding  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


761 


subject;  and  therefore  in  preparing  my  Address  I  took  the 
precaution,  before  giving  my  opinion  upon  evolution,  to  state 
as  accurately  as  I  could  what  I  rneant  by  it.  I  gave  my  defini- 
tion of  evolution,  which,  as  it  relates  to  the  organic  world,  is 
contained  in  the  three  words,  "Descent  with  Modification." 
That  is,  as  animals  and  plants  descend  from  generation  to 
generation,  at  length  modifications  appear.  In  my  definition  I 
do  not  say  anything  of  the  power  under  whose  influence  the 
modifications  appear.  So  far  as  the  earth  is  concerned,  I 
define  evolution  as  derivation  of  one  state  from  another  previ- 
ous state,  such  as  is  illustrated  in  the  resume  I  give  of  the 
nebular  hypothesis.  That  is  to  say,  evolution  is  simply  a 
process,  a  description  of  a  mode  according  to  which  changes 
take  place,  not  a  description  of  the  power  which  produces  the 
changes.    On  this  point  I  shall  read  what  I  have  written : 

"This  definition  or  description  of  evolution  does  not  include 
any  reference  to  the  power  by  which  the  origination  is  effected ; 
it  refers  to  the  mode,  and  to  the  mode  alone.  So  far  as  the 
definition  is  concerned,  the  immediate  existence  might  be 
attributed  to  God  or  to  chance ;  the  derived  existence  to  inherent 
uncreated  law,  or  to  an  almighty  personal  Creator,  acting 
according  to  laws  of  his  own  framing.  It  is  important  to  con- 
sider this  distinction  carefully,  for  it  is  wholly  inconsistent  with 
much  that  is  said  and  believed  by  both  advocates  and  opponents 
of  evolution.  It  is  not  unusual  to  represent  Creation  and 
Evolution  as  mutually  exclusive,  as  contradictory:  Creation 
meaning  the  immediate  calling  out  of  non-existence  by  divine 
power ;  Evolution,  derivation  from  previous  forms  or  states  by 
inherent,  self-originated,  or  eternal  laws,  independent  of  all 
connexion  with  divine  personal  power.  Hence,  if  this  is  cor- 
rect, those  who  believe  in  Creation  are  theists ;  those  who 
believe  in  Evolution  are  atheists.  But  there  is  no  propriety  in 
thus  mingling  in  the  definition  two  things  which  are  so  com- 
pletely different  as  the  power  that  produces  an  effect,  and  the 
mode  in  which  the  effect  is  produced." 

Moderator,  knowing  that  that  was  what  I  had  believed  and 
maintained,  and  knowing  that  I  had  so  explicitly  repudiated  all 
atheistic  forms  of  evolution,  I  could  not  but  spring  to  my  feet 
when  I  heard  two  or  three  days  ago,  for  the  first  time,  that 


762 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


which  I  had  denounced  as  atheism  attributed  to  me.  If  I  erred 
in  my  vehemence  in  repelling  the  charge,  I  crave  your  forgive- 
ness. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  well  to  make  clear  by  an  illustration  that 
which  may  be  too  abstract  for  ready  comprehension  by  those 
who  have  not  studied  such  subjects.  Take  an  oak,  for  instance. 
First  observe  the  acorn.  You  notice  that  under  the  influence 
of  heat  and  moisture  it  begins  to  swell.  Then  little  leaves  make 
their  appearance;  then  these  leaves  are  repeated  and  repeated 
until  at  last  the  full-grown  oak  stands  before  you.  Let  us  now 
try  to  see  what  is  the  religious  character  of  the  process  of  this 
growth.  Is  the  passage  from  the  acorn  to  the  oak  a  religious 
or  an  irreligious  process  ?  Do  I  need  to  show  that  the  idea  that 
it  was  God  who  made  the  acorn  to  develop  into  the  oak  is  not 
involved  in  the  description  of  this  process?  So  the  idea  of 
God  is  not  involved  in  the  definition  which  I  have  given  of 
evolution. 

Dr.  Junkin:  I  desire  to  ask  for  my  own  information  this 
question:  Does  this  process  of  evolution  which  you  have  thus 
described  carry  with  it  the  presumption  of  a  growth  from  one 
form  of  life  into  another?  That  is,  does  it  carry  along  with  it 
the  presumption  of  divine  power  or  supervision  in  the  change 
from  vegetable  to  animal  life ;  or  is  that  done  without  the 
immediate  intervention  of  a  divine  creative  act? 

Dr.  Woodrow  :  As  to  that  I  would  have  to  answer  at  length, 
instead  of  saying  yes  or  no.  In  describing  the  changes  from 
the  acorn  to  the  oak,  I  am  stating  the  results  of  observation. 
So  if  that  particular  oak  gives  rise  to  a  slightly  different  form, 
I  simply  note  that  as  a  fact.  I  am  not  then  considering  the 
power  that  has  produced  the  changes  when  I  am  merely  describ- 
ing the  changes.  The  mere  observation  of  the  process  or  mode 
by  which  the  acorn  becomes  an  oak,  does  not  tell  me  whether 
it  is  God  who  is  the  cause  of  the  change  or  not.  So  the  obser- 
vation of  cases  in  which  I  observe  modification  during  descent 
tells  me  nothing  of  the  power  producing  the  observed  changes. 
Within  the  limits  of  natural  science,  it  is  only  the  natural  or  the 
ordinary — that  which  occurs  uniformly — that  can  rightly  be 
considered.  All  else  the  student  of  natural  science  would 
regard  as  extraordinary  or  extra-natural,  and  so  beyond  his 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


263 


province.  If  he  should  speak  of  the  supernatural,  he  would 
be  going  beyond  his  province. 

Speaking  of  the  processes  or  modes,  it  is  true  that  a  knowl- 
edge of  them  depends  on  observation,  which  teaches  us  nothing 
of  their  origin;  but  so  soon  as  I  have  learned  from  other 
sources  that  there  is  a  God;  that  there  is  a  being,  infinite, 
eternal,  and  unchangeable  in  wisdom,  power,  and  all  his  attri- 
butes; and  when  I  know  the  relations  of  this  being  to  the 
universe,  his  workmanship,  then  I  perceive  that  this  process  of 
change  from  acorn  to  oak  is  his  mode  of  working — that  every 
step  in  the  process  is  the  working  of  an  almighty  and  all-wise 
God.  And  so  when  I  come  as  a  believer  in  God  to  the  study 
of  those  things  which  I  now  begin  to  call  the  works  of  God,  I 
find  him  present  in  a  way  that  I  had  never  imagined  before. 
When  I  look  at  the  quivering  leaf  growing  under  the  influences 
of  the  sunshine  and  the  rain,  I  see  before  me  God's  power 
effecting  the  wonderful  changes  that  are  there  taking  place ;  I 
see  the  present  power  of  that  God  directing  and  guiding  its 
faintest  movement.  When  I  see  the  dew-drop  resting  on  the 
blade  of  grass  reflecting  from  its  surface  the  prismatic  hues,  I 
see  not  proofs  of  the  existence  of  a  distant  or  absent  God;  I 
see  his  hand  there  immediately  present  holding  the  particles 
together,  for  my  delight  as  one  of  his  ends ;  causing  the  white 
ray  of  light  to  be  broken  up  into  the  marvellous  rainbow  colors 
so  as  to  charm  the  sense  of  sight;  it  is  God  who  is  doing  this 
before  me.  As  I  look  abroad  upon  the  operations  of  nature  on 
a  grander  scale — when  I  stand  in  the  presence  of  the  mountain 
and  behold  the  veil  of  blinding  snow  on  its  summit,  I  see  there 
the  power  of  God  holding  particle  to  particle  and  producing 
that  which  fills  my  mind  with  awe ;  that  which  expands  my 
soul  and  gives  me  a  new  and  an  exalted  idea  of  the  mighty 
Creator — -not  in  whom  we  did  live,  but  in  whom  we  now  live 
and  in  whom  we  have  our  being,  who  is  now  causing  every 
pulse  beat  in  this  wrist,  who  is  now  giving  me  the  power  to  be 
heard  by  you.  He  is  a  God  near  at  hand ;  he  is  not  a  God  afar 
off.  This,  I  say,  is  the  Christian's  view  of  God  and  his  rela- 
tion to  his  works.  Can  you  imagine,  then,  if  this  is  true,  and 
not  a  mere  fancy,  can  you  imagine  that  when  I,  so  believing, 
speak  of  evolution,  or  when  any  right-thinking  man  speaks  of 


764 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


it,  he  is  pushing  God  away  and  doing  that  which  tends  to 
materialism,  or  to  a  blank  denial  of  the  existence  of  the 
Almighty?  Need  I  now  undertake  further  to  prove  that  Evo- 
lution is  not  antagonistic  to  Creation;  that  Evolution  is 
Creation  ? 

If  anything  more  is  needed,  let  me  ask  you  again  the  question 
which  I  have  heard  so  frequently  during  the  last  day  or  two: 
"Who  made  you?"  I  don't  mean  who  made  several  ages  ago 
those  from  whom  you  have  descended,  but  who  made  you? 
Are  you  an  orphan  so  far  as  the  Creator  of  the  universe  is 
concerned,  or  is  God  your  Father  and  Creator  ?  Are  you  going 
to  allow  some  one  to  come  here  and  say  that  because  he  did  not 
create  you  immediately,  he  did  not  create  you  at  all  ?  No ;  you 
have  as  much  claim  to  him  as  your  Father  as  Adam  had.  But 
did  he  make  you  immediately?  Oh  no,  he  did  not.  Yet,  for 
all  this,  no  one  is  willing  to  give  up  his  right  to  say  "Our 
Father"  and  "our  Creator."  Creation  is  not  antagonistic  to 
our  evolution.  God  may  create  out  of  nothing;  but  so  far  as 
the  daily  operations  of  his  hands  are  concerned,  we  see  that 
he  does  not  create  out  of  nothing,  but  out  of  something  that  he 
had  previously  brought  out  of  nothing.  But  he  is  not  the  less 
creating  before  our  eyes.  There  is  no  antagonism  between 
Creation  and  that  mode  of  Creation  which  we  call  Evolution. 

You  will  now  better  understand  why  I  should  say  that  I  want 
no  change  in  the  expression  of  the  Confession :  "After  God  had 
made  all  other  creatures,  he  created  man."  The  only  differ- 
ence between  us  is  as  to  the  probable  mode  of  that  creation. 

I  wish,  in  the  next  place,  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  it 
has  been  constantly  reiterated  that  I  subordinate  Scripture  to 
science.  The  only  answer  that  I  have  for  that  statement  is  that 
it  is  not  true.  I  cannot  give  any  explanation  of  the  matter 
except  just  that.  I  say  that  there  is  not  a  word  that  I  ever 
spoke,  or  wrote,  or  thought,  that  would  bear  that  construction  ; 
and  any  one  who  has  read  what  I  have  written  ought  to  know 
that  it  is  not  true.  I  have  always  sought  to  know  what  the 
Scriptures  teach  with  regard  to  any  matter  that  I  was  examin- 
ing; and  when  I  have  found  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures,  I 
have  accepted  that  as  final.  I  say  again  that  there  is  not  a 
syllable  I  ever  uttered,  or  a  word  I  ever  spoke,  that  could  even 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


765 


remotely  sanction  any  such  construction.  When  I  said  that  I 
believed  it  to  be  probably  true  that  Adam's  body  was  included 
in  the  method  of  mediate  creation,  it  was  only  after  I  had  shown 
that  it  might  not  be  inconsistent  with  the  Sacred  Scriptures. 
[Here  a  motion  was  made  that  the  Synod  adjourn.  Lost  by  a 
large  majority.] 

Hastening  on  as  rapidly  as  I  can,  and  omitting  many  things, 
I  will  take  up  a  sample  of  the  objections  that  have  been  made 
to  my  views.  "You  are  utterly  unscientific/*  I  am  told,  "in 
your  statement  that  Adam,  as  to  his  body,  was  derived  from 
beast  ancestors."  That  is  about  the  way  it  is  put.  I  don't 
think  that  all  who  use  this  language  mean  thereby  to  excite 
disgust  or  contempt  towards  me.  But  when  I  say  that  Adam, 
as  to  his  body,  may  have  been  a  lineal  descendant  of  the  higher 
forms  of  mammalian  life,  I  believe  it  because  I  think  it  in 
accord  with  God's  usual  plan  as  I  find  it  in  the  case  of  other 
animals.  "When  you  come  to  the  soul  of  Adam,  you  are  guilty 
of  a  breach  of  continuity ;  and  when  you  come  to  Eve,  instead 
of  believing  that  she  descended  from  the  lower  animals,  you  say 
that  she  was  created  in  a  supernatural  way.  Therefore  you 
are  talking  nonsense;  you  contradict  yourself;  you  are  doing 
that  which  is  unscientific;  you  are  making  a  muddle  and  a  jum- 
ble. Is  it  not  perfectly  clear  that  God  made  man,  male  and 
female,  and  that  he  created  them  in  the  same  way?  You  say 
there  are  two  ways." 

Why  do  I  say  so?  I  say  part  of  what  I  do  because  God  tells 
me  so  plainly  in  his  word;  I  say  the  other  part  because,  his 
word  being  silent,  he  has  allowed  me  to  learn  its  probable  truth 
from  a  study  of  his  works.  I  do  not  believe  it  unscientific  to 
believe  in  miracles,  or  that  the  Almighty  God,  who  chooses  to 
effect  certain  purposes  in  one  way  now,  ties  himself  to  that 
way,  and  that  he  can  never  effect  the  same  purpose  in  another 
way.  I  do  not  think  it  unscientific  to  believe  that  God  can 
make  wine  by  causing  the  grapes  to  grow  on  the  vine,  and  the 
juice  to  be  expressed  and  to  ferment,  and  at  the  same  time  to 
believe  that  he  can  also  make  it  even  better  without  that  which 
is  his  ordinary  process.  If  that  is  making  a  muddle  and  a 
jumble,  I  am  satisfied  to  make  it.  It  may  be  making  a  botch 
and  doing  what  is  very  ridiculous  to  say  that  while  fire  ordin- 


766 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


arily  burns,  it  does  not  always  burn.  I  remember  a  case 
where  fire  did  not  burn.  Don't  you?  Is  that  unscientific?  If 
it  is,  I  am  content  to  be  unscientific.  Why  do  I  say  that  there 
are  two  different  ways  as  to  the  creation  of  the  bodies  of  Adam 
and  Eve?  Because  I  find  in  the  Bible  no  expression  which  cer- 
tainly shows  the  mode  of  the  creation  of  Adam's  body,  and  I  do 
find  the  mode  of  the  creation  of  Eve's  body  and  Adam's  soul 
clearly  set  forth.  It  is  not  the  ordinary  way,  and  therefore  it  is 
excluded  from  evolution.  Is  that  a  subordination  of  the 
Scriptures  to  science,  to  accept  their  plain  and  simple  declara- 
tion? Again  they  say:  "If  true  science  admits  of  no  change 
or  exception,  how  can  you  believe  that  God  made  the  first  man  ? 
If  he  made  our  parents  in  a  certain  way  and  their  parents  in 
the  same  way  for  all  time,  we  will  have  to  keep  going  back  for 
ever  before  we  arrive  at  the  origin."  With  regard  to  that 
matter  I  might  reply  that  such  an  objection  might  come  from  a 
certain  kind  of  so-called  science,  but  I  do  not  see  how  it  can 
come  from  a  Christian  believer.  The  same  objection,  if  valid, 
would  keep  one  who  believes  in  the  possibility  of  miracles  from 
believing  in  any  branch  of  natural  science. 

But  I  wish  to  say  that  what  is  involved  in  my  probable  belief 
as  to  the  creation  of  Adam,  has  been  the  belief  of  the  Church 
of  Christ,  from  the  earliest  ages  down  to  the  present  time  as 
to  the  creation  of  each  human  being.  What  has  been  the 
doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Churches  with  but  few  exceptions 
until  very  recent  times  ?  What  was  the  prevalent  belief  in  the 
Church  before  the  Reformation?  It  is  that  doctrine  which  is 
spoken  of  as  "Creationism."  That  doctrine  represents  the 
body  of  each  human  being  as  derived  from  its  parents  by 
natural  generation — as  mediately  created ;  while  each  soul  is 
immediately  created,  and  is  imparted  to  the  derived  animal  body 
by  God's  direct  power.  By  one  mode  or  process  the  animal 
body  is  brought  into  existence;  then  by  an  entirely  different 
process  the  soul  is  brought  into  existence  and  united  with  the 
previously  formed  animal  body.  This  is  not,  I  understand,  the 
doctrine  of  the  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Columbia  Semin- 
ary; but  if  you  will  read  any  work  on  Theology  or  Church 
History,  you  will  see  that  it  has  always  been  the  widely  preva- 
lent belief  of  the  Church.    And  you  cannot  fail  to  perceive  that 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


767 


this  furnishes  an  exact  counterpart  of  the  suggestion  that 
Adam's  body  may  have  been  derived  from  ancestors,  while  his 
soul  was  immediately  created  and  inbreathed  by  God. 

I  might  also  call  your  attention  to  the  wonderful  likeness  that 
exists  between  the  first  Adam  and  the  second  Adam.  That  is 
to  say,  in  the  origin  of  the  one  and  of  the  other  there  has  been  a 
mixture  of  the  natural  and  the  supernatural,  of  creation  medi- 
ate and  immediate.  How  was  it  in  the  incarnation  of  our 
adorable  Redeemer?  He  was  formed  as  to  his  body  of  the 
substance  of  his  mother.  He  grew  according  to  the  laws  of 
God  as  in  the  case  of  any  other  human  being.  And  then,  what- 
ever may  be  true  as  to  the  doctrine  of  Creationism,  we  know 
that  in  his  case  there  was  superadded  that  other  nature,  the 
nature  of  the  Almighty  God.  There  was  plainly  that  admix- 
ture of  the  natural  and  the  supernatural  which  is  presumed  in 
the  hypothesis  which  I  have  been  inclined  to  believe  as  probably 
true,  and  which  has  been  held  up  as  only  worthy  of  withering 
scorn. 

Moderator,  I  am  told  that  in  the  contest  now  in  progress  I 
stand  alone;  that  no  one  stands  beside  me,  or  believes  with  me. 
Now,  if  there  is  anything  for  which  I  yearn,  after  the  love  of 
God  and  of  Jesus  Christ  my  Saviour,  it  is  the  love  and  approba- 
tion of  the  good,  the  pure,  the  upright,  of  those  who  bear  the 
image  of  God  in  their  hearts.  And  I  know  that  isolation  is 
desolation.  But  if  I  must  stand  alone  in  defence  of  what  I 
believe  to  be  his  truth,  I  submit  to  the  decree  and  to  the  will  of 
my  God.  I  will  not  be  the  first  who  has  seemed  to  stand  alone. 
As  I  look  through  the  vistas  opened  before  me  by  the  word  of 
God,  I  see  the  forms  of  three  who  were  cast  alone  into  the 
furnace  of  fire  heated  seven  times  more  than  it  was  wont  to  be 
heated.  But  as  I  look  again,  they  are  not  alone,  for  four  are 
walking  in  the  midst  of  the  fire;  and  when  they  came  forth 
from  that  furnace  not  even  the  smell  of  fire  had  passed  on  them. 
I  remember  also  that  when  an  apostle  was  once  called  to  stand 
before  Nero,  all  men  forsook  him;  but  yet  he  was  not  alone. 
As  I  look  in  another  direction,  I  see  a  form  standing  alone,  in 
the  presence  of  a  mighty  emperor  and  the  princes  of  the 
empire,  and  saying,  all  alone  as  he  seemed  to  be,  "With  regard 
to  the  charges  against  me,  if  any  man  can  prove  that  they  are 


768 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


true  by  the  word  of  God,  I  will  repent  and  recant;  but  until 
then,  here  I  stand,  I  cannot  otherwise;  God  help  me.  Amen." 
And  so  stand  I. 

But,  Moderator,  I  do  not  believe,  with  regard  to  the  only 
point  concerning  which  I  care,  comparatively,  in  this  whole  dis- 
cussion, that  any  such  loneliness  even  as  to  the  human  kind  is 
in  store  for  me.  And  yet  there  might  well  be.  Why,  you 
have  heard,  and  you  well  know  that  it  is  true,  that  when  this 
Address  of  mine  was  published,  when  it  went  abroad  through- 
out the  land,  there  was  a  shock  given  to  the  Church  and  to 
every  Christian  heart.  There  was  apprehension  and  terror 
with  regard  to  the  truth  which  God  himself  had  dictated.  There 
was  wild  agitation,  which,  we  are  told,  threatened  to  rend  the 
Church.  Moderator,  I  was  the  poor  cause  of  that  shock.  It 
was  what  I  believed  or  was  said  to  believe  that  sent  this  thrill 
throughout  the  land.  No  sooner  was  the  Address  published 
than  it  was  stated  in  a  journal  of  this  Church  that  I,  a  minister 
of  this  Presbyterian  Church  and  a  teacher  in  your  Theological 
Seminary,  was  treating,  to  all  appearances,  the  sacred  Bible  as 
a  Hebrew  legend.  Was  not  that  well  calculated  to  shock  the 
Church  from  one  end  to  the  other?  In  speech  after  speech  on 
the  floor  of  Synods  and  Presbyteries,  this  same  teacher  was 
represented  as  holding  doctrines  which  would  require  you  to 
throw  away  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  to  introduce  a  Confes- 
sion that  would  not  recognise  Adam  as  the  federal  head  of  the 
human  race.  And  you  have  been  told  here  what  has  been 
uttered  in  many  a  place  before — you  have  been  told  that,  if  the 
principles  of  this  Seminary  professor  are  received,  you  must 
throw  away  the  supernatural  altogether;  you  must  give  up  all 
hope  of  a  resurrection.  Was  not  that  enough  to  shock  the 
Christian  world  ?  Was  not  that  enough  to  excite  the  agitation 
which  followed? 

But  is  it  true  that  I  have  ever  taught  that  the  Scriptures  are 
to  be  regarded  as  doubtful  in  even  a  single  word?  No,  it  is 
not.  Every  word  of  it  and  every  syllable  I  have  maintained 
must  be  received  as  true.  Have  I  ever  taught  any  doctrine 
which  involved  the  giving  up  of  the  federal  headship  of  Adam  ? 
No,  I  say  again. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


769 


And  then,  again,  to  show  the  effect  of  such  teachings  and 
such  belief?  as  this  professor  is  charged  with,  in  some  journals 
to  which  reference  has  been  made,  my  personal  religious  char- 
acter has  been  blackened. 

Xow.  is  it  any  wonder  that  a  shock  should  be  felt  by  this 
Church  from  one  end  to  the  other  ?  But  am  I  the  guilty  party  ? 
Do  you  see,  do  you  hear,  any  foundation  for  the  charges  which 
you  have  heard  brought  against  me?  Did  you  ever  hear  any- 
thing from  me  |  and  I  would  appeal  also  to  those  young  gentle- 
men sitting  there  who  are  still  under  my  instruction),  did  you 
ever  hear  from  me  anything  that  would  give  ground  for  such 
charges  ?  There  is  not  one  thing  that  I  believe  or  have  said 
that  could  give  color  to  these  gross  misrepresentations  of  my 
belief.  I  cannot  and  will  not  say  it  was  because  I  may  have 
been  misunderstood.  It  was  gross  misrepresentation  and 
nothing  else.  The  extent  to  which  this  shock  has  been  felt  is 
shown  by  the  interest  taken  in  the  matter  both  by  the  secular 
and  religious  journals  of  the  land.  One  Presbytery,  the  Xew 
Orleans  Presbytery,  has  published  to  the  world  that  it  is  not  to 
be  held  responsible  for  any  of  the  wicked  teachings  of  this 
wicked  professor.  It  has  recently  sent  a  young  man  to  the 
Columbia  Seminary,  but  it  gives  fair  notice  that,  if  this  poison 
be  not  eradicated  by  drastic  measures,  that  youth  will  be  taken 
away  sq  that  he  shall  not  be  harmed.  As  I  have  told  you 
already.  Synods  which  are  themselves  teaching  evolution  in 
their  Universities,  are  raising  most  loudly  the  cry  that  my 
wicked  teachings  must  be  stopped.  Xow  are  they  not  a  pretty 
set  of  people  to  ask  you  to  sweep  away  this  foul  blot  from  the 
Theological  Seminary  of  South  Carolina?  "YYe  can  teach  it  as 
much  as  we  please  here  at  home,"  they  say  practically:  "'but 
there  you  shall  not  do  it.  We  will  take  our  students  away,  and 
send  them  to  other  institutions."  But  where  will  you  send 
them.  I  may  ask.  Is  not  evolution  taught  in  those  other 
places?  Is  not  that.  Moderator,  jumping  out  of  the  frying-pan 
into  the  fire? 

I  do  not  know  that  it  is  really  worth  while  I  and  I  shall  do  it 
in  the  most  rapid  manner')  to  consider  some  of  the  objections 
made  to  the  theory  of  evolution.  Dr.  Junkin  gave  as  one  of 
those  objections  the  difficulties  presented  by  hybridism.  He 


49— w 


T70 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


said  that  there  was  no  possibility  of  the  theory  being  true  on 
account  of  such  difficulties.  Now.  on  a  point  of  this  kind,  I 
must  prefer  the  authority  of  Dr.  Asa  Gray,  who  has  been 
studying  that  subject  longer  than  Dr.  Junkin  has  been  living; 
and  Dr.  Gray  says  it  is  not  so.  He  finds  that  the  notion  that 
hybrids  are  not  fertile  is  by  no  means  always  true.  Another  of 
Dr.  Junkin's  objections  is  the  naming  of  the  animals  by  Adam 
as  showing  the  perfection  of  speech.  Well,  I  must  say  that  I 
cannot  see  the  force  of  that  argument;  for  if  the  animals  had 
come  by  evolution,  couldn't  they  have  been  named  just  as  well? 
As  to  the  philological  theories  alluded  to,  I  have  never  intimated 
that  I  knew  anything  about  the  evolution  of  language;  and 
there  is  no  propriety  in  holding  me  responsible  for  what  I  know 
nothing  about.  But  I  cannot  see  what  the  evolution  of  lan- 
guage has  to  do  with  the  evolution  of  plants  and  animals ;  or 
how  that  subject,  about  which  I  do  not  profess  to  know  any- 
thing, can  affect  what  I  do  know,  and  of  which  I  have  spoken. 

In  the  next  place,  we  are  told  that  evolution  is  to  be  rejected, 
because  it  is  born  of  atheism.  It  is  said  that  many  atheists 
hold  the  doctrine  of  evolution,  and  therefore  it  is  not  true. 
Darwin  was  not  an  atheist,  but  at  the  same  time  he  was  not  a 
believer  in  Christianity.  But  how  does  that  affect  the  truth  of 
evolution?  On  the  other  hand,  we  know  that  there  are  many 
others  who  believe  in  evolution  who  are  not  atheists.  If  others 
say  it  leads  to  atheism,  I  say  it  does  not ;  and  I  content  myself 
with  pronouncing  their  proposition  an  "unverified  hypothesis/' 

Then  you  are  told  that  it  assigns  a  beastly  origin  to  man. 
Well,  we  need  not  be  so  proud.  We  have  bodies  exactly  like 
the  beasts,  if  you  choose  to  call  them  so.  Our  muscles  are 
arranged  in  the  same  way.  The  heart  beats  in  the  dog  just  as 
it  beats  in  me.  His  legs  are  made  like  mine  and  like  my  arms. 
He  has  a  brain  in  his  skull  and  a  spinal  marrow.  He  digests 
as  I  do.  He  does  everything  in  the  same  way.  Again,  as  to 
our  instincts  being  shocked :  what  is  there  in  red  clay  that  is  so 
much  more  noble  than  the  most  highly  organised  form  God  had 
made  up  to  the  time  of  Adam?  You  have  only  the  choice 
between  red  clay  and  the  highest  and  best  thing  that  was  pro- 
duced by  the  power  of  God  up  to  the  time  of  man's  existence. 
And  if  your  decision  is  to  be  controlled  by  your  prejudices  and 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


771 


your  instincts  and  your  feelings,  let  me  ask  you,  Moderator, 
how  do  you  like  to  think  that  the  negro  is  your  brother?  Is 
your  instinct  shocked  by  that?  Will  you  follow  instincts  in 
one  case  and  not  follow  them  in  another? 

Without  dwelling  longer  on  that  point,  let  me  call  your  atten- 
tion to  an  objection  urged  against  the  theory  as  to  man's  body. 
We  are  told  that,  according  to  the  received  interpretation  of  the 
Scriptures,  he  was  made  of  inorganic  dust.  (Of  course,  when 
I  say  that  man's  bodv  may  have  been  made  of  organic  dust,  I 
mean  God  may  have  chosen  to  derive  man's  body  from  a  pre- 
viously existing  animal  form.)  You  are  told  that  the  idea  of 
mediate  creation  is  precluded  by  the  received  interpretation  of 
the  Bible.  Well,  it  is  not  precluded  by  anything  said  in  our 
Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  as  we  have  already  seen. 
Outside  our  standards  I  suppose  that  some  of  the  most  widely 
"prevailing  and  recognised  views"  of  the  meaning  of  the  Script- 
ures are  set  forth  in  the  little  Catechism,  already  frequentl}' 
quoted  during  this  discussion.  What  is  said  there  on  this  sub- 
ject? Let  us  see:  "Who  made  you?"  "God."  Did  he  make 
you  mediately  or  immediately  ?  I  suppose  you  would  say :  God 
did  not  make  me  immediately,  but  mediately,  through  my 
ancestors.  "Of  what  did  he  make  you?"  "Of  the  dust  of  the 
ground."  Mediately  or  immediately?  Now,  if  you  say  it  was 
mediate  in  the  one  case,  why  may  you  not  at  least  say  it  may 
have  been  mediate  in  the  other  ?  In  Ecclesiastes  12  :7,  we  learn 
that  each  one  of  us  is  made  of  the  dust  of  the  earth ;  and  yet 
each  one  of  us  has  come  from  a  long  line  of  ancestors.  But 
that  language  is  figurative,  you  say;  and  it  is  true,  as  has  been 
said  on  this  floor,  that  every  figure  must  have  its  literal  basis. 
Now,  you  say  that  the  basis  for  the  figure  is  to  be  found  in  the 
fact  that  Adam's  body  was  formed  of  the  literal  dust  of  the 
ground.  How  do  you  know  that  ?  Suppose  I  say  you  may  go 
back  a  generation  or  so  farther  for  the  basis  of  the  figure,  why 
not?  According  to  your  own  exegesis,  you  can  go  back  from 
yourself  to  Adam.  Why  can't  you  go  back  a  step  farther,  and 
farther,  until  you  reach  the  very  beginning  of  all  organic  life, 
when  inorganic  matter  was  organised  and  vivified?  If  you 
may  go  back  to  Adam  for  the  basis  of  your  figure,  what  right 
have  you  to  say  that  I  must  stop  there,  and  may  not  go  still 


772 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


farther  in  search  of  the  true  basis  ?  What  right  have  you  to  say 
that  I  shall  stop  at  any  particular  place  ? 

[At  this  point,  another  motion  was  made  to  adjourn,  which, 
a  division  being  had,  was  lost.  In  answer  to  a  question  by 
Prof.  Shepherd,  Dr.  Woodrow  continued.] 

Dr.  Woodrow:  I  have  answered  the  objection  as  to  the 
evolution  of  language  already.  I  said  that  I  did  not  know 
enough  about  it.  I  have  never  studied  it  in  such  a  way  as  to 
entitle  me  to  say  one  syllable  as  to  the  development  of  language. 
But  that  does  not  interfere  in  the  slightest  degree  with  what  I 
do  know  and  have  studied.  If  I  had  confined  my  investigations 
to  the  changes  in  animals,  I  would  not  consent  to  speak  as  if  I 
knew  anything  about  the  changes  in  plants.  And  if  I  had  so 
studied  the  facts  of  the  solar  system  as  to  convince  me  of  the 
truth  of  the  nebular  hypothesis,  I  would  not  be  disturbed  in  my 
belief  by  any  difficulties  that  may  be  connected  with  the  evolu- 
tion of  plants  and  animals.  I  cannot  therefore  undertake  to 
answer  the  question  that  has  been  put.  And  so  far  as  the 
evolution  of  the  standards  of  the  Church  is  concerned,  my 
venerable  friend,  Dr.  Adger,  is  the  proper  person  to  whom  to 
address  that  question. 

Next,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  formidable  objection 
urged  by  Mr.  Pratt,  derived  from  the  genealogy  of  the  Saviour 
as  it  is  presented  in  the  third  chapter  of  the  Gospel  according  to 
St.  Luke :  "Which  was  the  son  of  Methusaleh,  which  was  the 
son  of  Enoch,  .  .  .  which  was  the  son  of  Adam,  which  was  the 
son  of  God."  Now,  let  us  read  that  genealogy  in  accordance 
with  the  interpretation  which  Mr.  Pratt  has  insisted  on,  and 
wouldn't  it  be :  "Which  was  the  son  of  Adam,  which  was  the 
son  of" — what?  Of  what  shall  I  say?  Go  back  to  the  Cate- 
chism ;  what  is  the  substance  of  which  Adam  was  made  ?  If  it 
is  true  that  a  belief  that  Adam's  body  may  have  been  derived 
from  previously  existing  animal  forms  requires  you  to  read,  as 
you  have  been  told,  "which  was  the  son  of  Adam,  which  was 
the  son  of  a  beast,"  is  it  not  equally  true  that  Mr.  Pratt's  belief 
requires  you  to  read,  "which  was  the  son  of  red  clay"  ?  Is  that 
the  way  in  which  you  would  reason?  Well,  it  is  not  the  way, 
Moderator,  in  which  I  would  reason.  You  know,  and  it  would 
seem  that  everybody  must  know,  that  this  genealogy  cannot 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


773 


have  the  remotest  bearing  on  the  question  as  to  how  it  pleased 
God  to  form  the  body  of  Adam.  Would  Adam  be  less  the  son 
of  God  if  God  formed  him  of  one  substance  rather  than 
another?  Our  venerable  friend  [Dr.  Frierson]  tells  us  that  we 
are  not  certain  about  the  meaning  of  anything  contained  in  the 
Bible.  Still  I  am  persuaded  that  my  friend  and  I  would  agree 
as  to  the  meaning  of  this  genealogy:  that  going  back  step  by 
step  we  at  length  come  to  the  first  great  Cause,  the  God  and 
Father  of  us  all,  the  omnipresent  and  almighty  God,  the  Source 
of  all  being;  the  Framer  of  Adam's  body  and  the  Father  of  his 
spirit,  and,  through  him,  of  all  his  descendants  to  the  latest 
generation. 

But  I  find,  Moderator,  that  I  am  so  exhausted  that  it  is 
utterly  impossible  for  me  to  proceed,  and  hence  I  must  ask 
your  indulgence. 

[After  a  short  debate,  a  motion  was  made  to  adjourn,  which 
was  carried,  Dr.  Woodrow  having  the  floor.  Next  evening 
(the  morning  having  been  devoted  to  replies  to  his  remarks), 
Dr.  Woodrow,  resuming  the  argument,  said:] 

Moderator,  you  need  not  be  at  all  alarmed  at  this  formidable 
array  of  books,  for  I  do  not  intend  to  read  them  to  you.  I  had 
intended  to  read  extracts  from  them  on  certain  points ;  for 
example,  from  this  work  by  President  Schmid,  to  show  who 
are  evolutionists ;  but  I  think  probably  it  is  not  necessary.  I  had 
also  intended  to  read  an  extract  or  two  from  this  work  on  The 
Origin  of  the  World,  by  the  anti-evolutionist,  Principal  Dawson, 
to  show  that  in  some  important  particulars  the  views  of  the 
author  correspond  precisely  with  those  set  forth  in  my  Address. 
I  had  intended  to  read  from  Guyot's  book  on  Creation,  to  show 
that  his  teachings  upon  points  touching  the  Scriptures  are 
identical  with  mine;  and  that  while  I  do  not  know  what  his 
views  were  with  regard  to  evolution,  yet  that  is  a  matter  of 
entire  indifference,  for  he  has  distinctly  set  forth  in  the  work 
that  the  question,  so  far  as  evolution  is  concerned  (within  the 
limits  of  my  definition)  ,  is  an  entirely  open  one.  I  had  intended 
to  read  from  Truths  and  Untruths  of  Evolution,  by  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Drury,  lecturer  before  the  Theological  Seminary  of  the 
Dutch  Reformed  Church,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the 
strong  support  the  theory  received  from  those  high  in  that 


774 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Church;  and  particularly  from  the  teachings  of  one  of  his 
predecessors  in  the  lectureship,  the  learned  Tayler  Lewis,  who, 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  he  was  an  avowed  anti-evolu- 
tionist, maintained  that  it  was  perfectly  consistent  with  the 
Scriptures  to  entertain  the  views  of  the  theory  which  I  do,  and 
of  evolution  in  all  the  various  directions  which  I  point  out. 
But  I  shall  not  burden  you  with  all  this.  Nor  shall  I  read  to 
you  a  letter  which  I  have  in  my  pocket  from  the  Professor  of 
Theology  in  the  Allegheny  Theological  Seminary  [Rev.  Dr. 
S.  H.  Kellogg],  in  which  he  makes  it  appear  that  in  all  the 
scriptural  points  involved  his  views  are  identical  in  every  par- 
ticular with  mine.  I  may  say,  however,  while  on  this  point, 
with  regard  to  the  chairs  of  theology,  that  evolution  is  dis- 
cussed by  every  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  whether  North  or  South;  and  there  is  a  good  deal 
about  it  in  the  text-book  used  by  the  Professor  of  Theology  in 
the  Columbia  Theological  Seminary.  I  am  not  singular,  there- 
fore, you  will  observe,  Moderator,  in  my  course. 

Now,  inasmuch  as  the  course  of  the  Holy  Office  or  the 
Inquisition  has  been  so  stoutly  recommended  as  an  example  for 
us  to  follow,  and  as  it  has  been  maintained  that  the  Church  of 
Rome  performed  its  duty,  and  that  we,  being  similarly  situated, 
must  now  take  similar  steps  in  reference  to  a  similar  matter,  I 
have  thought  it  might  be  well  for  the  Synod  to  have  the  method 
adopted  by  the  Church  of  Rome  fully  before  it,  that  it  may 
adopt  whatever  course  of  action  may  be  suggested  by  the  read- 
ing of  the  whole  case. 

I  will  now  give  you,  therefore,  from  this  book  the 

''Sentence  of  the  Tribunal  of  the  Supreme  Inquisition  against 
Galileo  Galilei,  given  the  22d  day  of  June 
of  the  Year  1633." 

We,  Gasparo,  etc.,  etc.,  by  the  mercy  of  God  Cardinals  of  the 
Holy  Roman  Church,  Inquisitors  of  the  Holy  Apostolic  See, 
in  the  whole  Christian  Republic  specially  deputed  against 
heretical  depravity: 

It  being  the  case  that  thou,  Galileo,  son  of  the  late  Vincenzio 
Galilei,  a  Florentine,  now  aged  70,  wast  denounced  in  this  Holy 
Office  in  1615: 

That  thou  heldest  as  true  the  false  doctrine  taught  by  many, 
that  the  Sun  was  the  centre  of  the  universe  and  immovable,  and 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


775 


that  the  Earth  moved,  and  had  also  a  diurnal  motion :  That  on 
this  same  matter  thou  didst  hold  a  correspondence  with  certain 
German  mathematicians  :  That  thou  hadst  caused  to  be  printed 
certain  letters  entitled  On  the  Solar  Spots,  in  the  which  thou 
didst  explain  the  said  doctrine  to  be  true :  And  that,  to  the 
objections  put  forth  to  thee  at  various  times,  based  on  and 
drawn  from  Holy  Scripture,  thou  didst  answer,  commenting 
upon  and  explaining  the  said  Scripture  after  thy  own  fashion: 
And  thereupon  following  was  presented  (to  this  tribunal)  a 
copy  of  a  writing  in  form  of  a  letter,  which  was  said  to  have 
been  written  by  thee  to  such  an  one,  at  one  time  thy  disciple,  in 
which,  following  the  position  of  Copernicus,  are  contained 
various  propositions  contrary  to  the  true  sense  and  authority  of 
the  Holy  Scripture : 

This  Holy  Tribunal  desiring  to  obviate  the  disorder  and  mis- 
chief which  had  resulted  from  this,  and  which  was  constantly 
increasing  to  the  prejudice  of  the  Holy  Faith;  by  order  of  our 
Lord  f  Pope)  and  of  the  most  Eminent  Lords  Cardinals  of  this 
supreme  and  universal  Inquisition,  the  two  propositions  of  the 
stability  of  the  Sun  and  of  the  motion  of  the  Earth  were  by  the 
qualified  theologians  thus  adjudged : 

That  the  Sun  is  the  centre  of  the  universe  and  doth  not  move 
from  his  place  is  a  proposition  absurd  and  false  in  philosophy, 
and  formally  heretical ;  being  expressly  contrary  to  Holy  Writ : 
That  the  Earth  is  not  the  centre  of  the  universe  nor  immovable, 
but  that  it  moves,  even  with  a  diurnal  motion,  is  likewise  a 
proposition  absurd  and  false  in  philosophy,  and  considered  in 
theology  ad  minus  erroneous  in  faith. 

But  being  willing  at  that  time  to  proceed  with  leniency 
towards  thee,  it  was  decreed  in  the  Sacred  Congregation  held 
before  Our  Lord  (Pope)  on  the  25th  of  February,  1616,  that 
the  most  Eminent  Lord  Cardinal  Bellarmine  should  order  thee 
that  thou  shouldst  entirely  leave  and  reject  the  said  doctrine; 
and  thou  refusing  to  do  this,  that  the  Commissary  of  the  Holy 
Office  should  admonish  thee  to  abandon  the  said  doctrine,  and 
that  thou  wast  neither  to  teach  it  to  others,  nor  to  hold  or 
defend  it,  to  which  precept  if  thou  didst  not  give  heed,  thou 
wast  to  be  imprisoned :  and  in  execution  of  the  said  decree,  the 
following  clay,  in  the  palace  and  in  the  presence  of  the  said 
most  Eminent  Lord  Cardinal  Bellarmine,  after  having  been 
advised  and  admonished  benignantly  by  the  said  Lord  Cardinal, 
thou  didst  receive  a  precept  from  the  then  Father  Commissarv 
of  the  Holy  Office  in  the  presence  of  a  notary  and  witnesses, 
that  thou  shouldst  entirely  abandon  the  said  false  opinion,  and 
for  the  future  neither  uphold  nor  teach  it  in  any  manner  what- 
ever, either  orally  or  in  writing:  and  having  promised  obedi- 
ence, thou  wast  dismissed. 


776 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


And  to  the  end  that  this  pernicious  doctrine  might  be  rooted 
out  and  prevented  from  spreading,  to  the  grave  prejudice  of 
Catholic  truth,  a  decree  was  issued  by  the  Sacred  Congregation 
of  the  Index,  prohibiting  books  which  treated  of  the  said  doc- 
trine, which  was  declared  to  be  false  and  entirely  contrary  to 
Holy  Scripture. 

And  there  having  lately  appeared  here  a  book  printed  in 
Florence  this  past  year,  whose  superscription  showeth  thyself 
to  be  the  author,  the  title  being:  Dialogue  of  Galileo  Galilei  on 
the  Two  Great  Systems  of  the  World,  the  Ptolemaic  and  the 
Copernican:  and  the  Sacred  Congregation  having  been  informed 
-that  in  consequence  of  the  said  book  the  false  opinion  of  the 
mobility  of  the  Earth  and  the  stability  of  the  Sun  was  daily 
gaining  ground ;  the  said  book  was  diligently  examined,  and  was 
found  openly  to  trangress  the  precept  which  had  been  made  to 
thee,  for  that  thou  in  the  said  book  hadst  defended  the  said 
already  condemned  opinion,  which  had  been  declared  false 
before  thy  face:  whereas  thou  in  the  said  book  by  means  of 
various  subterfuges  dost  endeavor  to  persuade  thyself  that  thou 
dost  leave  it  undecided  and  merely  probable.  The  which  how- 
ever is  a  most  grave  error,  since  in  no  way  can  an  opinion  be 
probable  which  has  been  declared  and  denned  to  be  contrary  to 
Holy  Scripture.  .  .  . 

Therefore,  having  seen  and  maturely  considered  the  merits 
of  thy  case,  with  thy  above-mentioned  confessions  and  excuses. 
We  have  adjudged  against  thee  the  herein- written  definite 
sentence. 

Invoking  then  the  Most  Holy  Name  of  Our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  of  His  most  glorious  Mother  Mary,  ever  Virgin, 
for  this  Our  definite  sentence,  the  which  sitting  pro  tribunali, 
by  the  counsel  and  opinion  of  the  Reverend  Masters  of  theology 
and  doctors  of  both  laws,  Our  Counsellors,  we  present  in  these 
writings,  in  the  cause  and  causes  currently  before  Us,  between 
the  magnificent  Carlo  Sinceri,  doctor  of  both  laws,  procurator 
fiscal  of  this  Holy  Office,  on  the  one  part,  and  thou  Galileo 
Galilei,  guilty,  here  present,  confessed  and  judged,  on  the  other 
part : 

We  say,  pronounce,  sentence,  and  declare  that  thou,  the  said 
Galileo,  by  the  things  deduced  during  this  trial,  and  by  thee 
confessed  as  above,  hast  rendered  thyself  vehemently  suspected 
of  heresy  by  this  Holy  Office,  that  is,  of  having  believed  and 
held  a  doctrine  which  is  false,  and  contrary  to  the  Holy  Script- 
ures, to  wit :  that  the  Sun  is  the  centre  of  the  universe,  and 
that  it  does  not  move  from  east  to  west,  and  that  the  Earth 
moves  and  is  not  the  centre  of  the  universe  :  and  that  an  opinion 
may  be  held  and  defended  as  probable  after  having  been 
declared  and  defined  as  contrary  to  Holy  Scripture ;  and  in  con- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


sequence  thou  hast  incurred  all  the  censures  and  penalties  of 
the  Sacred  Canons,  and  other  Decrees  both  general  and  partic- 
ular, against  such  offenders  imposed  and  promulgated.  From 
the  which  We  are  content  that  thou  shouldest  be  absolved,  if, 
first  of  all,  with  a  sincere  heart  and  unfeigned  faith,  thou  dost 
before  Us  abjure,  curse,  and  detest  the  above-mentioned  errors 
and  heresies,  and  any  other  error  and  heresy  contrary  to  the 
Catholic  and  Apostolic  Roman  Church,  after  the  manner  that 
We  shall  require  of  thee. 

And  to  the  end  that  this  thy  grave  error  and  transgression 
remain  not  entirely  unpunished,  and  that  thou  mayst  be  more 
cautious  for  the  future,  and  an  example  to  others  to  abstain 
from  and  avoid  similar  offences,  We  order  that  by  a  public  edict 
the  book  of  Dialogues  of  Galileo  Galilei  be  prohibited,  and  We 
condemn  thee  to  the  prison  of  this  Holy  Office  during  Our  will 
and  pleasure ;  and  as  a  salutary  penance  We  enjoin  on  thee  that 
for  the  space  of  three  years  thou  shalt  recite  once  a  week  the 
Seven  Penitential  Psalms,  reserving  to  Ourselves  the  faculty  of 
moderating,  changing,  or  taking  from,  all  or  part  of  the  above- 
mentioned  pains  and  penalties. 

And  thus  We  say,  pronounce,  declare,  order,  condemn,  and 
reserve  in  this  and  in  any  other  better  way  and  from  which  by 
right  We  can  and  ought. 

Ita  pronunciamus  nos  Cardinales  infrascripti. 

Now,  is  that  what  is  to  be  commended  in  this  Synod  of  South 
Carolina?    In  one  respect — 

Dr.  Junkin  :  Even  in  the  face  of  the  kindly  suggestion  made 
by  the  Moderator,  that  we  do  not  interrupt  the  speaker,  as  I 
conceive  the  reading  of  this  paper  to  be  an  effort  to  show  the 
utter  contemptibility  of  the  position  which  I  have  assumed,  and 
am  willing  to  maintain,  I  feel  that  Dr.  Wroodrow  would  not 
respect  my  Christian  manliness  were  I  to  allow  to  go  unchal- 
lenged the  imputation  contained  in  that  reading.  What  I  say 
is  this :  The  argument  of  that  paper  which  he  has  just  read  is  as 
solid  as  any  we  have  ever  heard  read.  It  contains  the  logic 
that  runs  through  every  Presbyterian  judicial  process  that  is 
adjudicated  in  the  courts  of  that  Church.  The  condemnation 
which  rises  in  the  mind  of  Dr.  Woodrow  has  arisen  in  the  mind 
of  every  one  of  us — a  condemnation  of  the  assumption  of 
authority  and  power  by  the  Romish  Church  over  the  persons 
and  opinions  of  its  membership.  But  in  the  exercise  of  an 
acknowledged  right,  in  the  performance  of  an  authorised  duty. 


778 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


she  says  and  declares  that  that  which  is  to  her  a  sacred  truth 
shall  not  be  denied  by  any  one  who  stands  in  her  schools.  I 
say,  in  the  exercise  of  that  right,  and  in  the  meeting  of  that 
responsibility,  the  action  of  the  Romish  Church  was  logically 
correct  and  scripturally  sound ;  but  I  do  not  mean  that  to  extend 
to  the  issue  she  made  over  the  person  of  the  man.  In  the  prin- 
ciple that  as  long  as  she  maintained  her  creed,  she  had  the  right 
to  silence  those  who  opposed  her  teachings  by  teaching  contrary 
doctrines  in  her  name,  did  she  have  the  right,  with  that  convic- 
tion upon  her,  to  interrupt  such  teaching?  I  say  she  did.  I 
am  willing,  Moderator,  to  be  branded  for  many  things ;  but  as  a 
fool  and  a  coward,  I  shall  not  be  without  a  protest.  I  say  that 
the  school  at  Pisa  was  a  school  under  the  domination  of  the 
Romish  Church  just  as  much  as  the  school  at  Clarksville  is 
under  the  domination  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Galileo 
taught  in  a  school  in  which  the  domination  of  his  Church  was 
as  dogmatic  as  it  is  to-day.  Now,  with  that  premise  granted, 
I  defy  any  man  to  show  that  the  action  of  the  Church  was 
inconsistent  with  the  rights  of  the  individual  who  taught  in  her 
name.  She  simply  asserted  the  exercise  of  a  right  which,  in 
that  age,  was  unquestioned,  and  which  is  to-day  in  vigorous 
exercise  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  I  say  that  the  logic 
of  it  is  as  sound  as  the  oak. 

Dr.  Woodrow  :  It  is  very  important,  Moderator,  that  every 
utterance  should  be  distinctly  understood,  and  I  am  glad  to 
know  what  Dr.  Junkin  meant.  You  all  see  now  to  what  extent 
he  commends  this  document.  There  is  one  particular  in  which 
I  also  think  the  Inquisition  is  to  be  commended :  When  Galileo 
was  called  to  appear  before  a  tribunal  which  claimed  jurisdic- 
tion over  him,  he  was  regularly  summoned  according  to  the 
Constitution  of  his  Church  in  the  matter;  and  before  that 
regularly  constituted  tribunal  he  had  the  privilege  of  defending 
himself  according  to  the  laws  of  the  Church.  But  as  to  this 
matter  I  will  only  say  farther  that  it  was  not  I  who  introduced 
Galileo  into  this  discussion ;  but  since  his  name  had  been  intro- 
duced, I  thought  that  it  was  extremely  desirable  that  this  Synod 
should  know  what  the  decree  of  the  Holy  Office  was  which  had 
been  so  strongly  commended. 


HIS  TEACHINGS.  779 

In  the  next  place,  Moderator,  passing  over  this,  I  call  atten- 
tion to  a  remark  made  by  my  colleague  [Dr.  Girardeau]  to  the 
effect  that  my  teaching  as  to  the  rights  and  authority  of  the 
Church  was  one  thing  at  the  Seminary,  and  quite  a  different 
thing  here.  He  told  you  that  I  maintained  on  the  platform  in 
the  Seminary  that  the  Church  has  no  right  or  authority  to  teach 
anything  except  the  gospel.  Now,  is  not  that  exactly  what  I 
said  last  night  ?  That  the  authoritative  teaching  of  the  Church 
must  be  the  gospel,  and  the  gospel  alone  ?  I  say  so  before  the 
young  gentlemen  in  the  Seminary,  and  I  say  so  before  you.  As 
regards  authoritative  teaching,  the  Church  is,  of  course,  con- 
fined to  the  gospel.  But  that  position  is  perfectly  consistent 
with  what  I  have  further  maintained  here  and  everywhere,  that 
whatever  will  aid  the  Church  in  properly  accomplishing  that 
duty,  it  is  competent  to  the  Church  to  do.  Will  any  one  deny 
that  fact?  Will  any  one  deny  that  the  Church  has  a  right  to 
build  a  house  for  the  worship  of  God  ?  Will  any  one  deny  that 
the  Church  has  the  right  to  train  and  educate  young  men,  or  old 
men,  to  become  preachers  of  'the  gospel ;  and  must  their  training 
be  confined  to  things  expressly  commanded  in  the  word  of 
God?  But  surely  it  is  not  necessary  to  pursue  this  distinction 
any  farther.  The  Church,  I  maintain,  in  this  last  sense,  has  the 
right  to  do  and  teach  whatever  will  aid  it  in  accomplishing  its 
holy  purpose;  but  so  far  as  its  authoritative  teaching  is  con- 
cerned, that  must  be  confined  to  the  things  commanded.  I  am 
glad  that  I  have  the  opportunity  of  reiterating  this  principle; 
because  the  application  of  the  doctrine  will  completely  cut  off 
all  introduction  into  church  courts,  whether  Holy  Offices,  or 
Councils,  or  Synods,  all  decrees  in  reference  to  that  which  is 
scientific  in  its  character,  except  so  far  as  that  which  claims  to 
be  scientific  may  be  proved  to  be  contrary  to  the  Holy  Script- 
ures. The  question  will  not  be  whether  such  and  such  a 
teaching  is  right  or  wrong;  but  it  will  be  confined  exclusively 
to  whether  or  not  it  contradicts  the  Scriptures.  If  it  contra- 
dicts the  Scriptures,  then  to  us  it  is  false;  and  for  that  reason 
we  may  rightfully  in  a  church  court  condemn  it.  And  I  say 
that  the  application  of  this  principle  will  necessarily  cut  off  the 
first  part  of  the  fourth  resolution  of  the  minority  report,  as  that 
part  of  it  denounces  the  teaching  of  evolution,  because  it  is  an 


780 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


"unverified  hypothesis."  That  is,  because  it  is  false  in  science. 
It  does  not  say  whether  or  not  it  is  contrary  to  the  Scriptures. 
It  undertakes  to  decide  a  purely  scientific  question  without  even 
having  claimed  that  it  has  any  connexion  with  the  Holy  Script- 
ures. Oh,  Moderator,  it  will  be  a  sad  day  when  this  Synod 
resolves  itself  into  an  association  for  determining  the  exact 
amount  of  truth  in  a  purely  scientific  proposition.  I  would 
respectfully  call  to  mind  the  action  of  this  Synod  some  twenty- 
five  years  ago,  when  a  matter  involving  political  questions 
came  up,  and  there  was  doubt  in  the  minds  of  many  members 
as  to  whether  that  could  be  discussed  by  the  Synod.  The  Synod 
adjourned  and  met  simply  as  a  company  of  citizens  to  consider 
the  subject.  I  would  suggest  that,  when  you  take  into  consid- 
eration the  first  part  of  the  4th  resolution,  you  adjourn  and 
reassemble  as  a  company  of  scientific  gentlemen,  forming  a 
scientific  association,  to  engage  in  the  settlement  of  this  purely 
scientific  question.  But  I  trust  that  as  rulers  in  the  house  of 
God  you  will  not  undertake  to  pass  judgment  upon  a  question 
not  ecclesiastical,  when  your  Constitution  tells  you  that  you 
shall  "handle  or  conclude  nothing  but  that  which  is  ecclesiasti- 
cal." 

Dr.  Girardeau  :  I  would  like  to  ask  if  there  were  a  chair  in 
the  Theological  Seminary  designed  to  teach  and  indicate  the 
connexion  between  political  science  and  revelation,  and  the 
professor  should  give  his  opinion  in  favor  of  Democracy, 
wouldn't  that  be  somewhat  an  analogous  case  ?  I  would  admit 
that  Dr.  Woodrow's  position  was  the  correct  one,  if  we  had 
assembled  to  decide  a  question  of  science  alone. 

Dr.  Woodrow:  I  don't  think  it  would  make  a  particle  of 
difference.  I  showed  last  night  that  so  far  as  auxiliary  matters 
are  concerned,  the  Church  has  no  right  to  inquire  into  their 
truth  or  falsehood.  Or,  as  I  illustrated  then  by  the  multiplica- 
tion table  which  might  be  taught  by  the  authority  of  the  Church, 
or  by  the  various  kinds  of  instruction  given  in  that  combined 
institution  which  is  both  seminary  and  college,  all  under  the 
same  organisation,  some  of  the  professors  teaching  one  class 
part  of  the  day  and  some  another ;  an  institution  both  as  college 
and  seminary  bearing  in  every  particular  the  same  relations  to 
the  constituted  ecclesiastical  authorities.    I  do  not  think  that 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


781 


this  Synod  would  have  the  right  to  decide  the  question  of 
political  economy,  as  stated  by  Dr.  Girardeau.  The  Church's 
teachings,  that  is,  Christ's  teachings,  must  be  confined  to  things 
found  in  the  word.  But  I  maintain,  if  you  pass  upon  this  part 
of  the  4th  resolution,  where  it  is  not  shown  or  even  asserted 
that  there  is  any  connexion  between  science  and  the  Scriptures, 
you  will  be  deciding  a  purely  scientific  question,  which  Christ 
has  given  you  no  right  to  decide. 

The  only  thing,  Moderator,  that  you  have  a  right  to  inquire 
into,  as  to  any  proposition,  is  whether  it  is  scriptural  or  not; 
and  it  is  only  so  far  as  any  thing  agrees  with  the  holy  word  that 
you  may  adopt  it,  and  it  is  only  when  it  is  inconsistent  with  the 
holy  word  that  you  may  condemn  it,  when  sitting  as  a  church 
court.  There  is  much  truth  that  is  not  contained  in  the  Script- 
ures; but  with  it  you  have  nothing  to  do.  Otherwise,  why 
should  not  the  Church  adopt  the  multiplication  table,  or  some 
good  treatise  on  algebra,  as  matters  of  faith,  simply  because 
they  are  true? 

Are  there  those  in  this  Synod  who  still  desire  that  it  shall  be 
put  on  record  as  undertaking  to  decide  a  scientific  problem, 
without  the  slightest  opinion  expressed  as  to  its  agreement  or 
disagreement  with  the  word  of  God?  It  is  not  competent  to 
you,  I  say  again,  to  decide  such  a  question  without  going  beyond 
the  limits  of  your  authority,  and  legislating  with  reference  to 
things  which  the  Head  of  the  Church  has  not  intrusted  to  you. 
You  have  no  right  to  go  a  single  step  beyond  the  boundaries 
which  I  have  pointed  out. 

There  is  one  thing,  Moderator,  which  has  been  used  during 
the  discussion  to  which  it  is  scarcely  worth  while  to  allude ;  but 
as  no  little  stress  was  laid  on  it  in  the  way  of  appealing  to  the 
feelings,  perhaps  I  should  say  just  a  few  words  about  it.  You 
were  told  that  the  science  of  evolution  and  all  those  bad  things 
that  were  said  about  it  were  not  fit  to  be  taught  in  a  Theological 
Seminary,  because  they  would  be  of  no  practical  use  to  a 
minister  when  he  was  called  to  the  bedside  of  a  dying  saint  or 
a  dying  sinner.  You  were  asked  what  comfort  or  what  guid- 
ance the  dying  man  would  receive  from  a  discussion  of  the 
origin  of  man's  body,  or  any  unproved  hypothesis  connected 
with  the  subject.    Is  this  a  proper  test  of  what  shall  be  taught 


782 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


in  a  theological  seminary?  Then  you  must  put  a  stop  to  Pro- 
fessor Hemphill's  teachings ;  for  what  comfort  or  guidance  will 
a  dying  man  derive  from  listening  to  the  conjugation  of  a 
Hebrew  verb  at  his  bedside?  And  so  with  a  large  part  of  the 
auxiliary  instructions  in  every  Seminary  course.  But  I  beg 
pardon,  Moderator,  for  taking  up  your  time  with  this ;  I  have 
alluded  to  it  only  to  ask  you  to  think  what  such  an  argument 
is  worth. 

I  have  already  intimated  that  in  my  opinion  evolution — its 
truth  or  falsity — is  a  matter  of  extremely  small  importance.  I 
think  that,  as  regards  your  Christian  character,  it  does  not  make 
the  slightest  difference  whether  you  believe  in  evolution  or  not. 
I  have  said  directly  and  by  implication  over  and  over  again,  that 
the  Church  may  not  teach  science,  even  what  would  be  admitted 
by  all  to  be  true  science,  so  far  as  such  teaching  would  imply 
that  that  science  is  sanctioned  by  the  Church.  It  makes  no 
difference,  as  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Christian  Church,  whether 
one  believes  the  Ptolemaic  doctrine  of  the  solar  system,  or 
whether  he  believes  the  earth  to  be  round  or  flat,  or,  as  I  think, 
whether  he  regards  evolution  to  be  probably  true  or  an  unveri- 
fied hypothesis.  Scientific  beliefs,  even  those  which  are  in 
some  respects  of  the  highest  consequence,  when  they  are  com- 
pared wtih  the  doctrines  with  which  the  Church  of  God  is 
concerned,  and  which  alone  it  is  commissioned  to  teach,  are  of 
utter  insignificance. 

It  is  for  you  now  to  keep  the  Church  from  being  again 
dragged  down  from  its  sublime  and  sacred  work,  as  it  has  so 
often  been  in  the  past.  The  Church  in  various  ways  has 
uttered  its  belief  on  one  scientific  question  after  another  during 
the  past ;  and  I  think  I  am  right  when  I  assert  that  every  time 
the  Church  has  undertaken  to  express  an  opinion  on  scientific 
matters,  it  has  expressed  an  opinion  that  was  wrong.  And 
what,  Moderator,  is  the  sad  result?  In  every  land  where 
knowledge  prevails,  just  in  proportion  frequently  to  the  extent 
of  the  knowledge  is  the  extent  of  the  rejection  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  How  could  it  well  be  otherwise?  When  you  go 
into  a  church  and  hear  denounced  from  the  pulpit  as  false  those 
things  which  you  know  to  be  true,  are  you  going  to  believe 
the  Bible  to  be  the  word  of  God  on  such  authority  as  that? 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


783 


The  authorised  interpreter  of  the  word,  speaking  in  the  name 
of  the  Church,  tells  you  that  geology  is  not  true,  that  astronomy 
is  not  true,  and  that  you  must  reject  such  things  as  contrary  to 
the  inspired  word  of  God.  Is  it  a  wonder,  Moderator,  that 
those  who  know  the  truth  are  driven  by  such  teaching  into  utter 
rejection  of  the  Bible,  and  so  from  hope  and  down  to  hell? 
And  by  whom  ?  By  all,  Moderator,  who  insist  on  maintaining 
that  there  is  a  struggle,  an  opposition,  an  enmity,  between  that 
science  which  is  derived  from  the  word  of  God  and  the  science 
which  is  derived  from  his  works.  It  will  be  an  awful  and  a 
terrible  thing  in  the  day  of  judgment  to  have  the  blood  of  such 
men,  Moderator,  on  our  souls.  The  evils  to  which  I  am  calling 
your  attention  are  increasing  every  day.  A  larger  and  larger 
proportion  of  the  truest  and  the  noblest  of  our  youth  are  com- 
ing every  day  to  understand  and  to  know  the  truths  of  natural 
science;  and  just  in  proportion  as  it  is  asserted  from  the  pulpit 
that  natural  science  and  the  teachings  of  the  Bible  contradict 
each  other,  just  in  that  proportion  will  unbelief  and  its  fearful 
consequences  increase.  I  will  venture  to  say  that  there  is 
scarcely  a  community  in  this  State  where  you  cannot  find  one 
who  utterly  rejects  the  Sacred  Scriptures  and  Jesus  Christ  for 
this  reason.  Can  any  one  say  that  such  an  effect  has  ever  been 
produced  by  the  teachings  which  have  been  denounced  here  as 
contrary  to  the  word  of  God? 

Moderator  and  Brethren,  you  now  have  one  of  the  grandest 
opportunities  that  could  be  presented  of  maintaining  the  pure 
spirituality  and  exclusive  scriptural  character  of  the  Church. 
As  you  look  backward  over  the  dreary  past,  you  will  see  that  it 
has  been  taught  in  the  Church's  name  that  if  you  believe  that 
human  beings  live  beyond  the  torrid  zone,  you  must  reject  the 
Scriptures  as  false ;  if  you  believe  that  the  earth  is  a  sphere,  you 
must  reject  the  Scriptures  as  false;  if  you  believe  that  the  sun 
does  not  revolve  around  the  earth  but  that  the  earth  revolves 
around  the  sun,  you  must  reject  the  Scriptures  as  false;  if  you 
believe  that  the  universe  was  created  more  than  six  thousand 
years  ago,  you  must  reject  the  Scriptures  as  false.  Will  you 
add  to  this  dismal  list  of  appalling  examples  your  teaching,  that 
if  you  believe  that  evolution  is  true,  you  must  reject  the  Script- 
ures as  false? 


784 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


I  beseech  you  that  you  abstain  from  speaking  as  rulers  in  the 
Church  of  Christ  that  which  the  Head  of  the  Church  has  not 
authorised  you  in  his  word  to  speak.  I  beseech  you  that  you 
will  not  place  deadly  stumbling  blocks  in  the  path  of  those  who 
are  seeking  the  way  of  life  in  the  holy  word.  For  the  sake  of 
the  intelligent  ingenuous  youth  of  the  land,  for  the  sake  of  the 
greater  multitudes  who  will  look  to  them  as  their  guides,  that 
you  may  not  drive  to  eternal  death  those  whom  you  would  fain 
win  to  eternal  blessedness,  I  beseech  you  that  you  will  not  tell 
them  in  Christ's  name  that  if  they  accept  the  teachings  of  God's 
works,  they  can  have  no  share  in  the  unspeakable  blessings 
offered  in  God's  word.  By  your  love  for  the  souls  of  your 
fellow -men,  by  your  loyalty  to  the  King  and  Lord  of  the  Church 
and  your  desire  to  obey  him  by  keeping  within  the  limits  which 
he  has  prescribed  to  you,  as  you  would  glorify  him  by  bringing 
souls  into  his  kingdom,  I  beseech  you  as  his  representatives  do 
not  commit  him  to  what  he  has  not  commanded,  but  preach  the 
word,  and  the  word  alone. 

[The  foregoing  speech  was  delivered  before  the  Synod  of  South  Caro- 
lina on  the  27th  and  28th  October,  1884.  It  is  published  (after  revision) 
from  reports  furnished  by  stenographers;  but  these  reports  omit  much 
that  was  said  by  the  speaker,  as  well  as  many  questions  put  by  members 
of  Synod  and  short  speeches  made  by  them,  while  Professor  Woodrow 
occupied  the  floor.  But  the  speech  was  wholly  unwritten,  and  it  has  been 
found  impossible  to  supply  the  omitted  parts  from  memory.  The  action 
of  the  Synod  in  the  case  may  be  found  in  the  published  Minutes.] 

The  Synod  adopted  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  in  the  judgment  of  this  Synod  the  teaching 
of  evolution  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Columbia,  except 
in  a  purely  expository  manner,  with  no  intention  of  inculcating 
its  truth,  is  hereby  disapproved." 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


785 


Editorials. 


The  Rev.  Dr.  Kellogg  ox  Evolution. 

In  his  remarks  before  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina, 
Professor  Woodrow  referred  to  a  letter  which  he  had 
received  from  the  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Western 
Theological  Seminary  at  Allegheny,  Pa.,  in  which  was 
expressed  "cordial  agreement  with  all  the  essential  points  of 
his  teaching/'  but  he  did  not  read  it.  as  he  was  unwilling  to 
take  more  of  the  Synod's  time  than  seemed  to  him  abso- 
lutely necessary.    The  letter  is  as  follows: 

Allegheny,  Pav  Oct.  11th,  1884. 

Rev.  Dr.  Woodrow. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Brother :  Yours  of  the  23d  September  was 
received  some  time  ago  and  should  have  been  answered 
before  now  except  for  the  extra  work  that  is  entailed  upon 
me  by  the  prolonged  sickness  of  Prof.  Robinson,  and  the 
temporary  care  of  one  of  our  city  churches.  My  class-room 
teachings  as  to  creation  are  no  secret,  and  even  in  this 
extremely  conservative  region  I  have  never  heard  any  refer- 
ence to  them  in  an  unfriendly  way.  I  am  entirely  willing 
that  my  opinions  should  be  known  to  any  one  who  may  be 
concerned  to  know  what  they  are.  It  may  not  be  amiss  to 
repeat  precisely  what  I  believe  and  teach  concerning  the 
subject  of  creation  in  my  class-room. 

I  believe  (1)  That  science  has  not  yet  discovered  the 
mode  of  the  origination  of  species.  No  one  of  the  current 
theories,  in  my  opinion,  can  be  called  scientifically  ascer- 
tained truth. 

I  believe  (2)  That  the  Bible,  while  attributing  the  origin 
of  species  to  God,  does  not  give  us  any  information  as  to 
how  God  originated  species,  whether  by  immediate  fiat,  or, 
in  part  or  wholly,  by  organic  processes. 

I  believe,  therefore,  (3)  with  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge,  (Outlines 
of  Theology,  new  edition,  p.  39,)  that  with  "all  theories  of 
evolution  which  neither  deny  nor  obscure  the  evidence 
which  the  order  and  adaptation  observed  in  nature  afford  of 
the  existence  of  God,  and  his  imminence  in  and  providential 
50— W 


786 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


control  of  his  works.  ...  a  natural  theologian"  should  have 
"only  the  most  friendly  interest." 

In  regard,  in  particular,  to  the  origin  of  man,  I  believe  (4) 
That  the  Scriptures  teach  that  his  spiritual  nature — that  in 
virtue  of  which  he  is  said  to  be  the  "image"  and  the  "off- 
spring" of  God — came  not  from  below,  but  from  above; 
was  originated,  not  by  organic  process,  but  by  an  imme- 
diate, creative  inbreathing  of  God,  the  "Father  of  Spirits." 
As  to  the  separate  question,  however,  how  God  "formed  the 
body  of  man  out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,"  whether  by 
immediate  fiat,  or  by  some  manner  of  organic  process,  I 
believe  that  on  this,  again,  the  inspired  narrative  gives  us 
no  information.  The  inspired  words  which  describe  the 
creation  of  the  body  of  man,  are  to  my  mind  equally  con- 
sistent with  either  supposition.  Which  of  the  two  is  cor- 
rect, is  for — not  the  theologian — but  the  student  of  physical 
nature  to  find  out  if  he  can. 

Such,  in  brief,  is  the  substance  of  my  belief  and  my 
teaching  on  the  subject  which  has  been  so  agitating  some 
of  the  good  brethren  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church 
in  connexion  with  your  chair.  I  have  understood  your  posi- 
tion, from  your  Address,  to  be  essentially  the  same,  and  I 
am  pleased  from  your  letter  to  be  assured  that  this  is  the 
case.  How  any  person  can  bring  himself  to  believe  that 
such  a  view  of  Scripture  teaching  is  inconsistent  with  the 
strictest  theory  of  the  plenary  inspiration  and  consequent 
absolute  infallibility  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  word  of 
God — a  doctrine  which,  I  hardly  need  to  say,  I  hold  and 
teach  with  all  my  heart's  strongest  conviction — this  is 
impossible  for  me  to  understand. 

I  remain,  with  high  regard,  very  truly  yours, 

S.  H.  Kellogg. 

It  will  be  seen  from  this  letter  that  Dr.  Kellogg  differs 
with  Dr.  Woodrow  as  to  the  probable  truth  of  Evolution — 
he  believing  that  no  form  of  Evolution  has  been  established 
— but  that  he  agrees  with  him  on  every  point  in  which  the 
theologian  or  the  believer  in  the  Bible  is  concerned.  Thus 
he  states  his  belief  that  the  "Bible  does  not  give  us  any 
information  as  to  how  God  originated  species,  whether  by 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


immediate  fiat,  or,  in  part  or  wholly,  by  organic  processes;" 
further,  that  man's  spiritual  nature  was  created  imme- 
diately; but  that  "as  to  the  separate  question,  how  God 
formed  the  body  of  man  out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground, 
whether  by  immediate  fiat,  or  by  some  manner  of  organic 
process.  .  .  .  the  inspired  narrative  gives  no  information.'*' 

This  is  precisely  what  Professor  Woodrow  teaches  in  his 
Address,  and  that,  the  Scriptures  being  silent,  believers  as 
such  are  indifferent  as  to  the  truth  or  falsity  of  any  scientific 
doctrines  on  the  subject. 

The  Presbyterian  Banner,  which  publishes  Dr.  Kellogg's 
letter,  also  publishes  extracts  from  his  lectures.  One  of 
these  is  as  follows : 

"III.  In  the  theistic  form :  the  Christian  theologian  may 
leave  the  question  of  evolution  [in  the  specific  sense  of 
'origin  of  species  by  descent  with  modification']  open,  to 
be  settled  by  scientific  men.  Only,  the  Bible  record  seems 
to  impose  the  following  limitations :  I.  There  has  been  no 
production  of  life  out  of  death,  apart  from  the  divine  effi- 
ciency. 2.  Distinctions  of  species  are  coeval  with  creation ; 
only,  N.  B.,  we  do  not  know  how  God  draws  the  lines  of 
species.  3.  Alan,  as  to  his  rational  and  spiritual  nature,  is 
not  a  product  of  evolution,  but  a  product  of  the  creative 
power  of  God.  As  to  his  bodily  nature,  he  was  formed  out 
of  the  dust  of  the  ground ;  how,  whether  by  creation  imme- 
diate or  mediate,  as  by  some  organic  process,  the  Bible  does 
not  tell  us." 

In  another  place  he  says : 

"No  scientific  theory  can  explain  three  things,  namely:  i. 
How  life  could  come  out  of  what  had  not  life.  2.  How 
sensation  could  originate  out  of  what  had  no  sensation.  3. 
How  self-consciousness  and  the  power  of  free  moral  self- 
determination  could  be  evolved  out  of  mere  sensation  and 
consciousness." 

It  will  be  seen  from  these  quotations  how  very  nearly  Dr. 
Kellogg's  teachings  agree  with  Dr.  W oodrow's. 

As  a  result  of  the  publication  of  the  above  letter,  Dr.  Kel- 
logg appeared  before  the  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Western 
Theological  Seminary  at  its  semi-annual  meeting  last  week, 


788 


DR.  JAMS?  WOODROW. 


and  after  some  conference  tendered  his  resignation,  which, 
however,  was  not  acted  on,  as  the  meeting  was  not  a  full 
one.  We  regret  that  he  has  taken  this  course,  for  it  is  an 
important  matter  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  on  such 
points  should  be  determined,  and  this  can  be  done  only  by 
a  judicial  investigation.  No  mere  general  opinions  or  in 
thesi  deliverances  are  of  any  avail  in  ascertaining  the  mind 
of  the  Church ;  these  are  of  no  authority ;  hence  the  import- 
ance of  proceeding  in  a  constitutional  way.  It  is  of  course 
unpleasant  to  become  a  target,  to  be  shot  at  by  all  sorts  of 
arrows ;  but  if  the  maintenance  of  what  we  believe  to  be  the 
truth  requires  this  suffering,  it  ought  to  be  cheerfully 
endured. — Nov.  27. 


Who  Are:  Evolutionists? 

This  is  a  question  in  which  we  have  felt  an  interest  for 
some  time,  and  we  thought  we  could  ourselves  answer 
it  with  a  certain  degree  of  accuracy.  But  reading  the  jour- 
nals published  within  our  Church,  we  saw  it  so  often  inti- 
mated that  evolution  was  rejected  by  the  great  majority 
of  those  most  capable  of  forming  an  opinion  as  to  its  prob- 
able truth,  that  we  were  led  to  make  some  inquiries  on  the 
subject  amongst  our  scientific  friends.  The  answers  to  these 
inquiries  were  all  of  the  same  tenor.  We  shall  publish 
but  one,  which  will  give  the  substance  of  all.  It  is  from 
Professor  W.  H.  Brewer,  of  Yale  College,  with  whom  we 
have  been  intimately  acquainted  since  1855,  and  whom  we 
know  to  be  a  Christian  gentleman  of  the  highest  character. 
Distinguished  in  the  ranks  of  men  of  science  himself,  he  is 
thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  views  of  the  leading  scien- 
tific men  of  the  country;  hence  he  is  well  fitted  to  give 
trustworthy  testimony  in  the  case. 

So  far  as  we  suffer  ourselves  to  be  controlled  in  our 
beliefs  on  any  subject  by  authority,  we  would  surely  prefer 
the  authority  of  those  who  know  something  touching  the 
matter  to  that  of  those  who  know  little  or  nothing.  And  as 
evolution  has  to  do  with  natural  history,  it  is  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  naturalists  know  more  about  it  than  those 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


789 


whose  lives  have  been  devoted  to  other  pursuits,  however 
learned  they  may  be. 

Professor  Brewer's  letter  is  as  follows : 

Sheffield  Scientific  School  of  Yale  College. 

New  Haven,  Conn.,  Oct.  21st,  1884. 

My  Dear  Woodrow  : 

Yours  of  the  18th  is  just  received.  You  ask  my  views  on 
two  questions : 

"1st.  What  proportion  of  the  working  naturalists  of  this 
country  and  abroad  believe  in  evolution?" 

''2d.  The  names  of  as  many  as  do  so,  as  far  as  your  patience 
will  allow  you  to  write  them?" 

I  know  of  but  one  eminent  naturalist  in  America  who 
does  not  "believe  in  evolution" — that  is  the  venerable  Sir 
Wm.  Dawson,  of  Canada,  who  is  an  illustrious  geologist 
and  a  good  man. 

Precisely  what  his  belief  is,  I  do  not  understand,  but  my 
impression  is  that  while  he  does  not  believe  in  evolution,  he 
holds  that  the  idea  of  species  that  was  held  thirty  years  ago 
is  not  tenable,  and  our  conception  of  them  must  be  greatly 
modified. 

When  I  speak  of  naturalists,  I  include  all  geologists, 
whether  structural  or  experts  in  palaeontology,  and  from 
my  earlier  work  in  the  field  and  later  associations  here  and 
with  societies,  I  have  a  somewhat  wide  personal  acquaint- 
ance with  this  class  in  this  country,  less  so  in  Europe. 

I  have  an  impression  that  in  Europe  a  few  naturalists  are 
still  left,  all  old  men,  who  have  not  accepted  the  modern 
doctrine  of  evolution,  but  who  they  are,  and  what  their 
present  belief  is,  I  do  not  know.  While  I  can  repeat  many 
names  of  eminence  there  who  believe  in  evolution,  I  cannot 
cite  one  who  does  not,  although  I  think  some  still  exist. 

Among  my  personal  (scientific)  acquaintances  there,  is  a 
wide  range  of  belief  and  view  as  to  the  details — as  to  the 
comparative  force  of  several  causes,  as  to  the  paths  along 
which  lines  of  evolution  took  place,  but  this  does  not  affect 
belief  as  to  the  general  fact  of  evolution. 

I  think  that  the  working  naturalists  of  the  world  are  as 
substantially  agreed  as  to  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  of  evolu- 


790 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


tion  as  the  educated  men  of  the  world  are  as  to  the  rotundity 
of  the  earth. 

I  am  a  member  of  the  Natural  Academy  of  Sciences. 
Of  the  ninety-four  living  members  (I  have  run  through  the 
list),  I  am  acquainted  personally  with  thirty-two  naturalists 
who  believe  in  evolution  (I  exclude  from  this  all  the  mathe- 
maticians, astronomers,  physicists,  engineers,  etc.,  and  all 
others  whose  belief  I  have  no  knowledge  of),  and  I  do  not 
know  of  any  member,  naturalist  or  otherwise,  who  denies  it ; 
but  then  I  have  no  positive  knowledge  as  to  the  beliefs  of  a 
number  of  the  members. 

As  I  look  down  the  first  page  of  the  list,  I  find  the  natu- 
ralists (including  geologists)  Alex.  Agassiz,  Spencer  F. 
Baird,  W.  K.  Brooks,  W.  H.  Brewer,  C.  Comstock,  E.  D. 
Cope,  E.  Coues,  J.  D.  Dana,  C.  Dutton,  W.  G.  Farlow,  G.  K. 
Gilbert,  F.  N.  Gill,  Asa  Gray,  and  so  on  down  the  list. 

There  is  an  annual  "Scientific  Directory,"  or  "Natural- 
ist's Directory,"  published  at  Salem,  and  some  years  ago 
I  looked  over  the  list  as  then  constituted  and  marked  the 
names  of  all  those  scientists  whose  religious  belief  I  had 
any  knowledge  of,  and  I  was  struck  with  the  large  number 
who  were  connected  with  some  evangelical  Church,  I 
thought  then  and  still  think  a  larger  proportion  by  far  than 
would  be  found  to  be  the  case  with  a  similar  list  of  lawyers 
or  doctors. 

I  have  among  my  scientific  acquaintances  devout  and 
zealous  Methodists,  Baptists,  Presbyterians,  Congregation- 
alists,  Episcopalians,  etc.,  etc.,  who  believe  in  evolution, 
and  who  are  no  more  disturbed  in  their  religious  faith  by 
this  belief  than  by  the  belief  that  the  earth  is  round,  the 
sun  the  centre  of  the  solar  system,  or  the  world  more  than 
six  thousand  years  old. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  doctrine  of  evolution  is  now  as 
surely  and  firmly  established  as  either  of  the  three  doctrines 
(dogmas,  if  you  choose)  I  have  named.  Many  of  my  friends 
will  not  discuss  it  now,  except  as  they  might  discuss  either 
of  the  other  three  beliefs  named,  and  it  seems  to  me  most 
unfortunate  that  the  clergy  should  be  the  last  and  most 
reluctant  to  accept,  even  as  an  intellectual  belief,  a  doctrine 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


791 


so  firmly  placed,  and  so  generally  accepted  by  other  classes 
of  educated  men. 

As  a  teacher,  I  see  much  of  young  men,  and  know  their 
difficulties.  Some  years  ago  I  had  much  experience  with  the 
rougher  elements  of  society,  when  at  work  on  explorations 
and  surveys,  and  my  belief  is  that  this  attitude  of  so  many 
good  clergymen  against  scientific  progress  is  a  more  pow- 
erful factor  in  the  turning  of  the  masses  away  from  relig- 
ious teaching  which  so  many  are  deploring,  than  all  the  writings 
and  all  the  arguments  of  all  the  infidels  in  Christendom. 

You  and  I  are  both  old  enough  to  have  seen  its  sad 
effects  in  the  discussion  of  the  geological  question.  That 
is  now  settled ;  the  evil  appears  to  be  renewed  in  the  matter 
of  evolution,  with  the  same  sad  results. 

I  do  hope  and  trust  that  the  South  Carolina  clergy  will 
not  do  a  foolish  thing,  to  be  cited  by  every  future  unbeliever 
as  another  "effort  of  the  Church  to  stop  intellectual  pro- 
gress." 

Pardon  so  long  a  letter,  and  believe  me  as  ever 

Yours  truly,  Wm.  H.  Brewer. 

— Nov.  27. 


The  Christian  Index. 

We  are  very  glad  to  learn  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  H.  H. 
Tucker  has  again  become  Editor  of  the  Christian  Index, 
the  Baptist  journal  published  at  Atlanta,  Ga.  He  is  an 
admirable  writer ;  and  his  articles  on  doctrinal  and  practical 
religion  are  often  excellent  both  in  matter  and  manner — 
full  of  sound  gospel  truth,  well  expressed.  In  former  years 
we  often  laid  his  valuable  thoughts  before  our  readers, 
thereby,  we  doubt  not,  both  benefiting  and  gratifying  them. 
We  hope  to  do  the  same  in  the  future ;  for  we  trust  that  his 
heart,  brain,  and  hand  have  lost  no  part  of  their  cunning. 

Of  course  we  do  not  expect  to  ask  his  help  in  teaching 
scriptural  doctrines  as  to  church  government  and  baptism. 
On  those  points  he  has  gone  sadly  astray,  which  seems 
strange  in  view  of  his  sound  theology,  both  doctrinal  and 
practical.  Nor  do  we  think  we  can  gain  much  help  from  him 
as  to  the  relations  between  science  and  revelation. 


792 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


In  the  Christian  Index  of  last  week  he  gives  an  account 
of  the  recent  history  of  affairs  in  connexion  with  Columbia 
Theological  Seminary,  which  shows  that  he  has  lent  a  too 
credulous  ear  to  some  one  who  was  very  badly  informed 
or  who  was  wickedly  misrepresenting  the  facts.  And  this  is 
followed  with  a  caricature  of  Professor  Woodrow's  views, 
which  shows  that  the  outlines  of  this  grotesque  picture  also 
were  obtained  at  second  hand.  We  do  not  intend  to  engage 
in  a  discussion  of  these  mistakes  and  distortions ;  we  are 
sure  he  intended  to  be  fair,  but  was  misinformed.  But  even 
if  he  had  been  correctly  informed,  we  think  from  what  he 
says  that  he  would  have  placed  himself  in  the  attitude  of 
opposition  which  he  has  already  taken. 

But  his  errors  on  scientific  matters  do  not  show  that 
his  utterances  on  religious  subjects  may  not  be  of  the  high- 
est value.  To  believe  otherwise  would  lead  us  to  reject  the 
teachings  of  multitudes  of  the  best  and  wisest  men  who  have 
blessed  the  earth  with  their  presence.  It  would  lead  us  to 
refuse  to  listen  to  Luther  and  Melanchthon  and  Calvin  and 
Turrettin,  all  of  whom  rejected  the  doctrine  of  the  mobility 
of  the  earth;  it  would  lead  us  to  refuse  to  listen  to  great 
numbers  of  the  wise  and  good  expounders  of  the  gospel  who 
lived  half  a  century  ago  and  not  a  few  who  still  live,  who 
yet  were  and  are  in  darkness  as  to  the  age  of  the  earth.  It 
would  lead  us  likewise  to  turn  a  deaf  ear  to  that  vast  num- 
ber who  preach  the  pure  gospel,  but  who  may  have  greatly 
erred  in  their  beliefs  as  to  God's  plan  of  creation.  But  this 
would  be  very  unreasonable.  It  takes  a  long  time  for  scien- 
tific truth  to  permeate  the  masses  of  even  scientific  men; 
how  much  longer  must  it  require  to  be  generally  received  by 
religious  teachers  whose  time  must  be  so  largely  absorbed 
by  that  which  is  of  so  vastly  greater  importance,  and  whose 
ordinary  studies  are  so  far  removed  from  natural  science! 
The  scientific  errors  of  these  good  men  are  of  very  little 
importance,  except  when  they  seek,  through  a  misunder- 
standing of  God's  word,  to  make  it  appear  that  the  teachings 
of  his  word  contradict  the  teachings  of  his  works.  Mean- 
while their  religious  teachings,  outside  those  limits,  are 
unaffected  by  their  errors.   We  ought  to  be  just  as  grateful 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


793 


to  Luther  for  his  effective  resuscitation  of  the  glorious  truth 
that  the  "just  shall  live  by  faith"  as  if  he  had  not  called 
Copernicus  a  fool. 

So  it  is  with  Dr.  Tucker,  whom,  notwithstanding  any 
mistakes  he  may  make  as  to  scientific  matters,  we  most 
heartily  welcome  back  to  active  editorial  labors,  expecting 
in  the  future,  as  in  the  past,  to  gain  great  good  from  him  for 
ourselves  as  well  as  for  our  readers. — Jan.  22,  1885. 


Evolution. 

Evolution — The  substance  of  Two  Lectures  by  Geo.  D. 
Armstrong,  D.  D.,  Pastor  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church, 
Norfolk,  Va. ;  formerly  Professor  of  Chemistry  and  Geology 
in  Washington  and  Lee  University,  Va. 

This  is  the  title  of  a  pamphlet  of  twenty  pages,  contain- 
ing the  substance  of  lectures  delivered  not  long  ago  in 
Norfolk.  Va.,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Armstrong,  who  is  well 
known  and  very  highly  esteemed  throughout  the  Church. 
The  venerable  author,  near  the  end  of  his  essay,  says : 
"'You  have  now  the  whole  case  before  you : — the  arguments 
for  and  against  the  two  hypotheses  of  evolution  and  crea- 
tion ;  briefly,  but  I  think,  fairly  stated.''  With  this  quotation 
before  us,  it  is  not  necessary  to  say  towards  which  side  Dr. 
Armstrong  inclines.  If  the  choice  is  between  evolution 
and  creation,  no  Christian  believer,  and  even  no  believer  in 
a  God,  can  hesitate.  The  Christian  and  even  the  mere 
theist  must  believe  in  creation.  But  when  the  choice  is 
between  belief  in  creation  by  evolution  and  immediate 
creation,  it  may  be  otherwise. 

We  regard  this  pamphlet  as  the  best  defence  of  anti- 
evolution  that  we  have  seen  during  the  discussions  of  the 
past  year.  We  unite  with  the  Central  Presbyterian  in 
''wishing  that  a  copy  of  this  pamphlet  could  be  placed  in  the 
hands  of  every  minister  and  elder  of  our  Church."  We 
need  hardly  say  that  our  desire  for  its  wide  circulation  is 
not  based  on  a  belief  that  it  would  cause  the  adoption  of  the 
views  advocated;  but  rather  on  a  belief  that  it  would  have 
the  contrary  effect — of  leading  to  the  conviction  that  if  these 


794 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


are  the  strongest  arguments  against  evolution,  there  is  no 
very  good  reason  why  it  should  be  rejected. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  lectures,  as  well  as  in  the  title,  Dr. 
Armstrong  points  out,  as  a  reason  why  it  should  not  be 
thought  presumptuous  in  him  "to  attempt  to  discuss  evolu- 
tion as  a  question  of  science,"  the  fact  that  "some  of  the  best 
years  of  his  life  were  devoted  to  studying  and  teaching  nat- 
ural science  in  one  of  the  oldest  institutions  of  learning  in 
our  Southern  country."  He  refers  to  his  having  been,  more 
than  thirty  years  ago,  professor  of  Chemistry  and  Geology 
in  Washington  College.  That  he  has  been  able  to  retain  his 
deep  interest  in  natural  science  so  long  and  to  find  time  to 
devote  to  it  in  the  midst  of  the  laborious  duties  of  a  growing 
pastorate,  which  he  has  so  diligently  discharged,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  valuable  religious  volume  he  has  published 
during  the  same  period,  proves  him  to  be  a  thoroughly 
enthusiastic  student  of  nature.  His  enthusiasm  is  all  the 
more  clearly  seen  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  modern  discus- 
sions of  evolution  did  not  begin  until  several  years  after  he 
had  abandoned  the  career  of  teacher  of  natural  science  and 
devoted  himself  to  the  absorbing  duties  of  the  pastorate. 

In  the  statement  respecting  the  institution  where  he  was 
Professor,  there  is  a  slight  error  which  it  would  have  been 
as  well  to  have  avoided  in  a  discussion  where  the  strictest 
accuracy  is  desirable.  Washington  and  Lee  University  did 
not  come  into  existence  until  a  number  of  years  after  Dr. 
Armstrong  had  ceased  to  be  Professor.  The  institution  in 
which  he  was  Professor  (Washington  College)  belonged  to 
a  different  stage  in  the  line  of  descent.  Augusta  Academy 
was  not  Liberty  Hall,  nor  Liberty  Hall  Washington  Col- 
lege, nor  Washington  College  Washington  and  Lee  Univer- 
sity. The  University  was  modified  in  its  descent  from  the 
College,  the  College  in  its  descent  from  the  Hall;  whether 
we  may  go  further  back  towards  the  original  germ,  we  shall 
not  venture  to  say.  So  much  is  plain,  however,  we  have  in 
the  University  a  clear  case  of  evolution — descent  with 
modification. 

It  is  of  the  highest  importance  in  every  search  after 
truth  that  there  should  be  accuracy  of  definition — a  clear 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


795 


statement  of  what  we  intend  to  maintain  as  truth,  and  an 
equally  clear  and  honest  and  accurate  statement  of  what  we 
pronounce  to  be  error  and  desire  to  prove  to  be  such.  This, 
we  are  sorry  to  say,  Dr.  Armstrong  has  not  observed.  Not 
that  he  has  not  intended  to  be  fair;  for  he  is  thoroughly 
honest;  but  not  the  less  are  we  forced  to  say  that  his  defini- 
tion of  evolution  is  not  accurate,  and  that  if  he  had  intended 
to  give  a  caricature  instead  of  a  correct  description,  he 
could  not  have  given  one  more  complete.  Here  is  his  defini- 
tion (p.  3)  :  "Evolution,  a  hypothesis  which  postulates — as 
we  shall  see — the  transformation  of  an  oak — not  imme- 
diately, but  by  successive  variations — into  a  silk-worm,  a 
silk-worm  into  a  frog,  and  a  frog  into  a  man."  We  have 
recently  often  heard  that  evolution  teaches  that  the  cow  is 
a  descendant  of  the  cabbage,  the  oyster  of  the  "mucous 
okra,"  and  the  like;  but  we  certainly  did  not  expect  such 
caricatures  to  be  equalled  and  even  surpassed  by  what  an 
ex-professor  of  natural  science  designed  to  be  an  honest 
statement  of  the  truth.  No  evolutionist  believes  anything 
at  all  like  that  which  is  here  said  to  be  evolution.  What 
should  we  think  of  one  who  would  say  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Unity  of  the  Human  Race  is  that  it  postulates  the 
transformation  of  the  white  man  into  the  negro,  the  negro 
into  the  Chinaman,  the  Chinaman  into  the  Choctaw,  and  the 
Choctaw  into  the  Bushman?  And  yet  this  would  be  much 
nearer  the  truth  than  the  description  which  Dr.  Armstrong 
gives  of  evolution.  He  would  have  an  easy  task  before  him 
if  it  consisted  merely  in  demolishing  this  man  of  straw 
of  his  own  manufacture. 

But  let  us  see  how  he  proceeds : 

He  states  (p.  3)  as  "the  law  of  limitation  in  the  case  of 
growth  development" — "Variation,  extreme  as  it  may  be,  never 
extends  beyond  the  life  of  the  individual  plant  or  animal  in 
which  it  occurs/' 

On  the  same  page  he  says:  "There  is  a  large  class  of 
variations  in  plants  and  animals  which  accompany  change 
of  climate,  domestication,  and  cultivation,  which  under  the 
operation  of  the  'law  of  heredity'  are  often  perpetuated  beyond 
the  limits  of  a  single  life." 


796 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


We  confess  our  inability  to  perceive  the  agreement 
between  these  two  statements.  If  "variation  ....  never 
extends  beyond  the  life  of  the  individual  plant  or  animal 
in  which  it  occurs,"  we  are  unable  to  see  how  there  can  be 
"a  large  class  of  variations  in  plants  and  animals  .... 
which  ....  are  often  perpetuated  beyond  the  limits  of  a 
single  life."  Unless  there  is  some  meaning  here  which  we 
have  failed  to  reach,  there  is  the  plainest,  directest  contra- 
diction between  these  two  "laws."  The  second  is  a  fact 
which  forms  one  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  evolu- 
tion ;  but  what  the  first  means,  which  so  directly  contradicts 
the  second,  and  which  is  to  overthrow  evolution,  we  must  wait 
for  the  author  to  explain. 

He  next  quotes  a  number  of  distinguished  men  of  science 
in  support  of  his  views,  as  Huxley,  DeQuatrefages  (whom 
his  careless  printer  cruelly  makes  him  call  every  time  he  is 
mentioned  either  De  Quarterfrages  or  De  Quartrefages), 
Agassiz,  Darwin,  and  others.  Touching  these  quotations 
we  have  a  few  remarks  to  make.  As  is  generally  known,  the 
modern  active  discussion  of  this  subject  began  in  the  latter 
half  of  1858,  and  was  continued  still  more  actively  in  1859 
and  thereafter.  With  very  few  exceptions,  all  naturalists 
prior  to  these  dates  disbelieved  the  doctrine;  and  of  the 
exceptions,  still  fewer  could  be  said  to  believe  evolution  to 
be  true.  But  then  every  one  acquainted  with  natural 
history  began  to  study  the  new  doctrine,  or  the  doctrine 
newly  set  forth;  and  by  degrees  before  a  quarter  of  a  cen- 
tury had  passed  the  overwhelming  majority  of  those  who 
were  competent  from  their  knowledge  of  the  facts  involved, 
to  form  a  trustworthy  opinion  on  the  doctrine  came  to 
accept  it  as  true  or  at  least  as  probably  true.  What  thus 
came  to  be  believed  was  the  doctrine  of  descent  with  modi- 
fication. 

There  were  numerous  hypotheses  invented  to  account  for 
the  fact  of  evolution,  as  for  example  the  influence  of  natural 
selection,  and  so  on ;  and  concerning  these  hypotheses  there 
have  been  the  utmost  varieties  of  opinion,  and  the  most 
earnest  struggles  for  and  against  each  of  them.    But  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


797 


doctrine  of  descent  with  modification  was  held  to  be  firmly 
established ;  all  that  remained  was  to  ascertain  the  extent  to 
which  it  is  applicable,  and  the  true  nature  of  the  physical 
causes  at  work  to  produce  the  evolution.  Just  as  one  hun- 
dred and  eighty  years  ago  it  had  come  to  be  generally 
believed,  by  those  acquainted  with  the  facts,  that  the  earth 
and  planets  revolve  around  the  sun,  while  there  were 
earnest  discussions  as  to  the  forces  which  produced  such 
revolution,  so  during  the  last  twenty-five  years  it  has  come 
to  be  just  as  widely  believed  that  existing  plants  and  ani- 
mals have  descended  from  such  as  are  now  extinct,  while  no 
general  agreement  has  been  reached  as  to  the  causes  of  the 
modifications  involved.  In  i860,  Professor  Huxley,  who  was 
one  of  the  first  to  accept  the  doctrine  of  evolution  and  has 
been  one  of  its  foremost  defenders  for  twenty-five  years, 
published  an  article  in  the  Westminster  Review,  which  was 
subsequently  republished  in  "Lay  Sermons,  Addresses,  and 
Reviews,"  in  which  he  gives  his  reasons  for  rejecting  the 
"hypothesis  of  the  direct  creation  of  species,"  pronouncing 
it  "as  hopelessly  inconsistent  with  the  Hebrew  view  as  any 
other  hypothesis."  In  this  article  he  examines  Mr.  Darwin's 
hypothesis  that  evolution  was  effected  "by  the  process  of 
natural  selection,"  and  concludes  that  while  Mr.  Darwin's 
view  is  "an  extremely  valuable,  and  in  the  highest  degree 
probable  doctrine,  indeed  the  only  extant  hypothesis  which 
is  worth  anything  in  a  scientific  point  of  view,"  yet  it  is 
"still  a  hypothesis,  and  not  yet  the  theory  of  the  species." 
He  says  further:  "After  much  consideration,  and  with 
assuredly  no  bias  against  Mr.  Darwin's  views,  it  is  our 
clear  conviction  that,  as  the  evidence  stands,  it  is  not  abso- 
lutely proven  that  a  group  of  animals,  having  all  the  char- 
acters exhibited  by  species  in  nature,  has  ever  been  origin- 
ated by  selection,  whether  artificial  or  natural."  Any  one 
can  see  that  the  question  Professor  Huxley  is  here  discuss- 
ing is  not  evolution,  but  whether  natural  selection  is  the 
process  by  which  evolution  is  effected.  He  says  that  it  is 
in  the  "highest  degree  probable"  that  this  is  the  process,  yet 
it  is  not  "absolutely  proven."  But  the  fact  of  evolution  is 
not  questioned  or  doubted;  it  is  taken  for  granted  through- 


798 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


out ;  the  only  question  is,  Does  natural  selection  fully  account 
for  it? 

The  reason  why  we  have  taken  time  to  make  this  point 
perfectly  clear  is  that  Dr.  Armstrong  quotes  (as  many 
others  have  done  during  this  discussion)  some  of  the  expres- 
sions above  given  as  if  they  were  applied  by  Professor  Hux- 
ley to  evolution,  thus  wholly  misunderstanding  and  there- 
fore perverting  what  he  has  said.  To  quote  the  Evolutionist 
Huxley  against  evolution  is  as  if  a  Unitarian  should  quote 
the  Trinitarian  Calvin  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
when  he  says  he  regards  as  invalid  the  argument  in  favor  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  from  the  use  of  the  name 
"Elohim,  a  noun  of  the  plural  number."  The  argument  he 
says  "appears  to  him  to  have  little  solidity;"  and  he  "cau- 
tions readers  to  beware  of  violent  glosses  of  this  kind."  If 
it  would  be  a  grievous  error  to  represent  Calvin  as  here 
expressing  doubt  as  to  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  it  is  just  as  grievous  an  error  to  represent  Professor 
Huxley  as  expressing  doubt  as  to  the  doctrine  of  evolution, 
when  he  says  that  it  is  "still  a  hypothesis,  and  not  yet  the 
theory  of  species,"  that  they  "originated  by  selection." 

Agassiz  is  properly  referred  to  as  a  disbeliever  in  evolu- 
tion ;  and  Dr.  Armstrong  says  that  "even  now  the  hypothesis 
of  creation"  (meaning  immediate  creation)  "is  held"  by  him. 
How  does  he  know?  Agassiz  died  in  1873;  an<^  there  are 
multitudes  who  then  opposed  who  now  accept  the  doctrine 
of  evolution,  that  is,  of  mediate  creation.  It  would  have 
been  as  accurate  to  say  that  the  hypothesis  is  "even  now" 
held  by  Cuvier  or  Aristotle,  Agassiz'  great  forerunners  in 
natural  history.  We  have  known  many  of  Agassiz'  pupils 
who  were  once  anti-evolutionists;  but  we  do  not  know 
one  of  them  who  has  continued  diligently  to  study  natural 
history  to  this  time  who  has  not  become  a  believer  in  evolu- 
tion— largely  led  to  this  belief  by  following  out  the  princi- 
ples imbibed  from  that  great  master. 

Even  Darwin  is  quoted  as  disproving  evolution ;  but  surely 
no  comment  on  this  can  be  needed. 

After  these  examples,  it  is  hardly  worth  while  to  examine 
the  various  other  quotations  intended  to  disprove  evolution. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


799 


There  are  a  few  other  points  in  this  pamphlet  which  we 
desire  to  notice ;  but  we  find  that  to-day  we  have  not  room. 
—May  7. 


Good  Advice. 

It  seems  that  in  England  as  well  as  in  this  country  min- 
isters are  treating  of  modern  scientific  doctrines.  It  seems 
further  that  there  is  a  striking  similarity  in  the  mode  of 
treatment;  since  the  highest  dignitary  in  the  Church  of 
England,  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  has  felt  called  upon 
to  say  that  "if  the  clergy  wish  to  treat  of  modern  scientific 
doctrines,  it  might  be  well  that  they  should  know  some- 
thing about  them."  Some  months  ago  we  ventured  mod- 
estly to  make  the  same  suggestion,  but  without  effect, 
except  to  cause  a  feeling  of  resentment  on  the  part  of  some 
who  looked  upon  the  suggestion  as  an  attempt  to  restrict 
their  natural  rights. 

The  only  objection  we  have  to  make  to  the  Archbishop's 
advice  is  that  he  confines  it  to  the  "clergy."  This  is  hardly 
fair;  the  "laity,"  as  he  would  call  them,  are  equally  entitled 
to  it ;  all  classes  have  shown  that  they  need  it — ruling  elders, 
private  members  of  the  church,  and  those  who  are  not 
church  members.  Taking  away  this  limitation,  the  advice 
is  thoroughly  good ;  and  perhaps  coming  from  the  Primate 
of  England  it  may  have  more  influence  than  it  had  when 
we  gave  it. 

The  journal  from  which  we  copy  the  Archbishop's  advice, 
to  show  the  need  of  it,  quotes  the  following  "observations 
upon  astronomy  by  a  Welsh  curate,  when  preaching  to  an 
English  congregation :  'A  star  is  but  a  little  dot  in  the  sky. 
So  many  stars  make  one  planet.  So  many  planets  make 
one  constellation.  So  many  constellations  make  one  milky 
way.  Six  milky  ways  make  one  aurora  borealis.'  " 

But  we  can  show  by  testimony  from  a  source  much 
nearer  home  that  the  Archbishop's  advice  is  called  for  on 
this  side  the  Atlantic  also.  On  this  point  we  think  we  may 
safely  rely  upon  the  Central  Presbyterian  as  competent 
authority.    It  is  edited  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Richardson,  a  min- 


800 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


ister  in  our  Church,  and  by  Dr.  James  C.  Southall,  who, 
though  not  a  professing  member  of  any  Church  as  we  have 
been  informed,  is  doubtless  on  account  of  his  position  well 
acquainted  with  the  opinions  of  Presbyterian  ministers  in 
Virginia.  The  testimony  of  these  gentlemen  is  as  follows  : 

"There  are  scores  of  ministers  to-day  who  adhere  to  the 
old  notion  that  the  globe  was  created  about  six  thousand 
years  ago  in  six  solar  days  of  twenty-four  hours  each,  along 
with  the  sun,  the  planets,  and  the  fixed  stars,  and  that  the 
shells  which  one  finds  imbedded  in  the  rocks  of  the  oldest 
geological  formations  on  the  tops  of  the  Alleghanies  or  in 
the  limestones  of  the  great  valley  of  Virginia  were  left 
there  by  the  Noachian  flood." 

The  Central  Presbyterian  here  refers  of  course  to  white 
ministers,  and  not  to  its  neighbor,  the  Rev.  John  Jasper,  and 
others  of  his  color;  and  doubtless  chiefly  to  Presbyterians 
and  to  Virginians.  But  as  many  Virginia  ministers  are  to 
be  found  all  over  the  Church,  it  may  be  taken  as  applying  to 
all.  No  recent  reason  has  been  given  why  Virginia  minis- 
ters should  be  regarded  as  more  orthodox  on  scientific  ques- 
tions than  the  ministers  in  Kentucky,  her  daughter,  or 
Georgia,  or  Texas,  or  any  other  State. 

There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  correctness  of  the  Central 
Presbyterian's  statement.  We  did  not  think  (until  recently 
at  least)  that  the  proportion  was  quite  so  large — "scores"  in 
a  single  section;  we  yield  to  this  authority,  however.  But 
whatever  the  number,  we  ourselves  have  long  known  that 
these  "scores"  embrace  some  of  our  ministers  who  are  most 
deserving  of  honor  and  love  for  their  piety,  their  learning 
(in  other  directions),  and  their  great  usefulness.  And  their 
rejection  of  geology  does  no  one  any  harm,  so  long  as  they 
do  not  require  others  to  reject  it  also,  on  the  pain  of  being 
regarded  and  treated  as  unbelievers  in  the  Bible.  It  is  only 
when  they  begin  to  "treat  of  these  doctrines,"  as  the  Arch- 
bishop says,  "that  it  might  be  well  that  they  should  know 
something  about  them." 

What  is  true  of  geology,  may  be  true  to  a  still  greater 
extent  of  other  branches  of  science.  The  truths  of  geology 
have  now  been  studied  for  several  generations,  so  that  it  is 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


801 


a  little  surprising  that  "scores"  of  our  ministers  have  suc- 
ceeded so  completely  in  excluding  these  truths  from  their 
minds.  But  in  other  cases,  it  is  quite  different.  Facts  are 
daily  discovered  which  necessitate  a  change  in  the  views 
held  by  scientific  men.  It  is  impossible  that  most  men,  even 
thoroughly  educated  men,  should  keep  abreast  these  discov- 
eries in  every  direction.  The  busy  pastor,  lawyer,  physi- 
cian, farmer,  can  not  do  more  ordinarily  than  gain  a  slight 
acquaintance  with  the  advances  made  every  year  in  the 
scientific  world;  and  it  is  no  discredit  to  him  that  he  cannot. 
It  is  only  when  he  proceeds  to  "treat  of"  what  he  knows 
little  or  nothing  about,  that  he  is  justly  liable  to  blame. — 
—Aug.  13. 


An  Apology. 

Some  months  ago  we  noticed  briefly  an  argument  against 
Evolution  which  appeared  in  the  Southwestern  Presbyterian, 
intimating  that  perhaps  the  author  was  not  very  familiar 
with  anatomical  terms.  Not  long  after,  the  author,  W.  F. 
Ogden,  Esq.,  published  a  letter  in  the  Southwestern  Presby- 
terian to  Dr.  Woodrow,  which  we  did  not  see  until  many 
weeks  later.  This  is  our  apology  for  not  transferring  it  to 
our  columns  at  once;  though  perhaps  Mr.  Ogden  is  some- 
what to  blame  also,  for  we  think  he  ought  to  have  sent  his 
letter  directly  to  us. 

As  it  is  a  long  time  since  our  notice  was  published,  we 
reproduce  it  here,  so  that  our  readers  may  see  to  what  Mr. 
Ogden  is  replying.   We  said  : 

"Perhaps  we  need  hardly  give  a  formal  reason  for  not 
replying  to  a  correspondent  of  the  Southwestern  Presbyterian 
(an  intelligent  gentleman,  we  believe,  in  his  profession) 
who  closes  an  article  demolishing  theistic  Evolutionists  with 
three  unanswerable  questions  to  ask  these  theistic  Evolu- 
tionists :  .  .  .  "2nd.  Why  is  the  pelvis  only  found  in  man  ?" 
Now,  is  it  possible  that  the  writer  has  the  remotest  concep- 
tion of  what  the  pelvis  is  ?  Why  did  he  not  ask,  Why  is  the 
foot,  or  the  head,  or  the  leg,  only  found  in  man?  This  ques- 
tion would  have  been  just  as  effective  in  crushing  Evolu- 
tion; it  would  have  been  just  as  applicable,  and  every  way 


802 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


as  true  and  as  proper.  Was  not  the  suggestion  needed 
which  we  ventured  to  make  some  time  ago,  that  'at  least 
some  knowledge  of  the  subject  is  requisite  to  those  who 
engage  in  the  discussion'?  Before  this  correspondent  comes 
to  sit  in  judgment  on  any  question  connected  with  the  mat- 
ter, may  we  not  ask  him  to  spend  a  few  seconds  in  rinding 
out  what  a  pelvis  is,  and  a  few  minutes  in  finding  out 
whether  after  all  it  is  only  found  in  man?" 
To  this  Mr.  Ogden  replies : 

"Dr.  Woodrow :  I  call  your  attention  to  what  Huxley  says 
concerning  the  pelvis :  'The  pelvis,  or  bony  girdle  of  the 
hips  of  man,  is  a  strikingly  human  part  of  his  organisation; 
the  expanded  haunch  bones  affording  support  for  his  viscera 
during  his  habitually  erect  position,  and  giving  space  for  the 
attachment  of  the  great  muscles  which  enable  him  to  assume 
and  to  preserve  that  attitude.'  Man  only  has  a  pelvis  worth 
the  name,  and  evidently  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  him 
to  maintain  the  erect  position.  He  is  a  very  bold  man  who 
would  entrust  his  viscera  to  what  passes  for  a  pelvis  in 
monkeys.    (The  italics  are  mine.)  "W.  F.  Ogden. 

"This  in  answer  to  Dr.  Woodrow's  exclamation  against 
the  idea  that  'man  only  has  a  pelvis.' " 

We  wonder  what  Mr.  Huxley  would  think  if  he  were  to 
see  himself  quoted  to  prove  that  the  pelvis  is  found  only  in 
man !  His  surprise  would  be  equalled  only  by  Mr.  Ogden's 
if  he  should  find  that  some  one  had  understood  a  reference  of 
his  to  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  in  New  Orleans  as  an  assertion 
that  such  writs  do  not  exist  outside  of  New  Orleans.  Mr. 
Ogden  is  a  lawyer  of  distinction  as  well  as  a  presbyter; 
but  we  are  persuaded  that  he  did  not  reach  his  distinction  in 
his  profession  without  making  himself  acquainted  with  legal 
terms,  and  that  he  could  not  hope  to  win  a  case  if  he  were 
to  make  it  appear  to  the  court  that  he  had  misunderstood 
Blackstone  as  he  here  misunderstands  Huxley.  But  in  this 
case  a  knowledge  of  the  meaning  of  the  terms  was  really  not 
needed  to  prevent  Mr.  Ogden's  mistake;  for  the  very  next 
sentence  after  that  which  he  quotes  is :  "In  these  respects 
the  pelvis  of  the  Gorilla  differs  very  considerably  from  his." 
(Huxley's  Man's  Place  in  Nature,  p.  92.) — Aug.  /?. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


803 


Commendable  Progress. 

We  are  glad  to  see  that  the  Central  Presbyterian  is  making 
commendable  progress  towards  a  recognition  of  the  truth. 

The  point  in  Professor  Woodrow's  Address  which  has 
perhaps  been  most  sharply  criticised  is  the  following: 

"The  only  proper  conclusion  in  view  of  these  facts 
[namely,  the  statements  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures]  seems 
to  be  that  the  narrative  does  not  intend  to  distinguish  in 
accordance  with  chemical  notions  different  kinds  of  matter, 
specifying  here  inorganic  in  different  states,  and  there 
organic,  but  merely  to  refer  in  a  general  incidental  way  to 
previously  existing  matter,  without  intending  or  attempting 
to  describe  its  exact  nature.  For  such  reasons  it  does  not 
seem  to  me  certain  that  we  have  a  definite  statement  which 
necessarily  conveys  the  first  meaning  mentioned  [that  the 
narrative  'seems  to  point  out  with  unmistakable  clearness 
the  exact  nature  of  the  material  of  which  man's  body  was 
made']  touching  the  material  used  in  the  formation  of  man's 
body." 

It  will  be  remembered  how  elaborately  it  was  argued  in 
Synods,  in  newspapers,  and  elsewhere,  that  this  view  is 
directly  contrary  to  the  Scriptures,  that  it  subverts  the  very 
foundations  of  Scripture  interpretation,  that  it  makes  the 
Scriptures  a  "nose  of  wax"  to  be  twisted  at  will,  in  short, 
that  it  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  Christian  faith  and  doc- 
trine. And  those  who  so  argued  supposed  that  in  all  this 
the  Central  Presbyterian  was  one  of  their  most  faithful  allies. 
But  that  journal  now  abandons  them,  and  ranges  itself  on 
the  other  side,  so  far  as  this  point  is  concerned.   It  says : 

"If  any  one  should  affirm  that  in  creating  Adam  God 
created  him  by  a  miraculous  process  instantaneously  out  of 
pre-existing  organic  matter,  we  should  find  no  cause  to 
quarrel  with  him  for  holding  such  an  opinion.  It  is  a  harm- 
less and  admissible  view  of  the  subject,  and  touches  no 
doctrine." 

If  "harmless  and  admissible,"  then  of  course  it  is  not 
unscriptural  or  anti-scriptural.  It  follows  also  that  the 
Scriptures  do  not  teach  us  what  previously  existing  mate- 
rials were  used,  and  therefore  it  is  just  as  consistent  with 


804 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


the  Scriptures  to  think  it  may  have  been  organic  as  that  it 
may  have  been  inorganic.  Thus  the  Central  Presbyterian 
ranges  itself  on  this  point  by  Professor  Woodrow's  side. 

This  progress  is  hopeful.  If  we  may  venture  to  do  so,  we 
would  suggest  that  the  Central  next  attack  the  problem  of 
the  length  of  time  employed  in  creating  man's  body.  It 
now  says  it  was  done  "instantaneously."  Possibly  when 
it  begins  to  search  for  the  basis  of  this  statement,  it  may 
find  that  it  has  no  basis — that  the  Scriptures  give  us  no 
information  on  the  subject,  directly  or  indirectly.  Its  pres- 
ent reason  for  this  belief  seems  to  be  that  if  the  creation 
had  been  gradual,  if  the  process  had  not  been  "instantane- 
ous," but  had  taken  some  appreciable  length  of  time,  a 
good  many  human  bodies  would  have  been  produced ;  but  as 
only  a  single  one  was  made,  the  amount  of  time  needed 
must  have  been  inappreciably  small,  that  is,  the  production 
must  have  been  instantaneous.  But  we  are  in  hopes  that 
by  degrees  it  will  see  that  this  is  not  a  very  satisfactory 
way  of  reasoning,  and  therefore  will  abandon  this  point  also. 
—Oct.  i. 


As  to  Articles  in  the  Review. 

The  Associate  Reformed  Presbyterian,  speaking  of  the  last 
number  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Review,  says : 

"The  Evolution  question  in  some  of  its  features  takes  up  a 
very  large  part  of  this  number,  and,  to  quote  the  sly  remark 
of  the  Canada  Presbyterian,  'it  is  curious  that  all  the  articles 
are  on  the  Woodrow  side  of  the  question.' " 

As  we  have  heard  the  same  remark  made  by  others,  with 
the  more  direct  intimation  that  the  Editors  of  the  Review 
have  been  unwilling  to  publish  articles  on  both  sides  of  the 
question,  we  take  this  occasion  to  say  that  this  is  not  the 
case.  Not  only  have  no  offers  of  articles  on  the  other  side 
been  discouraged  or  refused,  but  special  efforts  have  been 
made  to  secure  the  preparation  of  articles  by  those  who  dis- 
sent from  Professor  Woodrow's  views. 

W e  wish  to  say  also,  with  reference  to  the  Southern  Pres- 
byterian, that  we  have  never  refused  to  publish  a  single 
article  written  by  an  opponent  of  Professor  Woodrow's 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


805 


views  since  the  publication  of  his  Address  last  year,  while 
we  have  refused  to  publish  a  large  number  sent  to  us  from 
every  part  of  our  Church  and  beyond  it,  which  maintained 
the  truth  of  his  views. — Oct.  I. 


The  Central  Presbyterian. 

Last  week  the  Central  Presbyterian,  speaking  of  the  editor 
of  this  journal,  says: 

"In  the  last  issue  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian,  through  the 
medium  of  a  correspondent,  he  utters  a  charge,  untrue  in 
spirit,  and  even  in  the  letter." 

We  take  all  possible  care  to  secure  the  most  perfect 
accuracy  of  statement  in  our  columns ;  and  if  any  "charge, 
untrue  in  spirit  and  even  in  the  letter,"  has  been  made,  we 
are  anxious  to  publish  a  correction  at  once.  We  therefore 
respectfully  request  the  Central  Presbyterian  to  state  what 
the  charge  is  to  which  it  refers,  and  to  specify  the  particu- 
lars wherein  it  is  untrue,  and  we  will  gladly  publish  the 
correction  without  a  moment's  delay. 

In  the  same  article,  referring  to  the  discussions  of  Dr. 
Woodrow's  views,  the  Central  Presbyterian  says : 

"Our  readers  will  bear  us  witness  that  we  uniformly  con- 
ducted the  examination  in  the  most  courteous  terms,  and 
that  we  studiously  attempted  to  discuss  the  question  exclu- 
sively on  its  merits." 

In  the  course  of  the  article  it  gives  us  a  specimen  of  what 
it  calls  "discussing  the  question  exclusively  on  its  merits." 
It  does  this  by  commending  and  thereby  adopting  a  com- 
munication from  its  anonymous  but  easily  recognised  cor- 
respondent "M.",  who  quotes  from  the  Memphis  Appeal, 
to  "reveal  the  views,  feelings,  and  aims  of  the  friends  and 
followers  of  Dr.  Woodrow,"  and  therefore  of  Dr.  Woodrow 
himself,  among  other  things,  the  following: 

"The  first  article,  after  eulogising  Professor  Woodrow, 
says  of  our  Church  in  pity  and  reproach :  'They  have  never 
formally  abrogated  the  fearful  dogma  of  predestination,  that 
few  now  believe.'  " 


806 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


For  this  sentiment  the  Central  Presbyterian  concurs  with 
its  correspondent  in  holding  Dr.  Woodrow  and  his  friends 
responsible ;  this  sentiment  "reveals  the  views,  feelings,  and 
aims  of  the  friends  and  followers  of  Dr.  Woodrow." 

Need  we  comment  on  this  method  of  "discussing  a  ques- 
tion exclusively  on  its  merits"? — Oct.  8. 


Questions  Answered. 

The  Central  Presbyterian  of  October  7th  contains  the  fol- 
lowing : 

Will  He  Answer f 

The  difficulty  with  Dr.  Woodrow  is  that  he  will  not  speak 
out  in  plain  language  that  every  one  can  understand  with 
regard  to  his  views.  He  really  believes  that  man,  as  to  his 
body,  was  the  product,  by  continued  modifications,  of  grad- 
ual evolution  from  the  lower  animals.  But  some  of  his 
followers  think  that  all  that  he  holds  is  that  man  was 
created  suddenly  from  an  inferior  species.  They  think,  in 
other  words,  that  the  only  difference  between  the  old  view 
and  Dr.  Woodrow's,  is  that  the  old  view  holds  that  Adam 
was  created  at  once  out  of  inorganic  matter,  while  Dr. 
Woodrow  holds  that,  so  far  as  concerns  his  animal  struc- 
ture, he  was  created  at  once  out  of  organic  matter  (that  is 
to  say,  was  miraculously  born  of  brute  parents).  Dr.  Wood- 
row  does  not  hold  this  last  view.  It  is  impossible,  we 
believe,  to  get  him  to  say  that  he  does  or  he  does  not,  and 
hence  the  mystification  thrown  over  this  whole  subject.  If 
Dr.  Woodrow  is  willing  to  have  his  views  known  dis- 
tinctly, let  him  answer  the  following  questions  in  a  plain 
way: 

1.  Do  you  believe  that  the  human  race  appeared  on  the 
earth  in  the  last  ten  thousand  years? 

2.  Do  you  believe  that  Adam,  as  to  his  body,  was  the 
product  of  a  gradual  evolution  from  the  lower  animal 
forms? 

3.  Do  you  believe  that  Adam  appeared  suddenly  on  the 
earth  as  a  miraculous  birth  or  creation  from  some  inferior 
animal  species? 

4.  Was  there  any  essential  difference  in  the  process  by 
which  man  (as  to  his  body)  was  evolved,  and  that  by  which 
the  hcrse  was  evolved  from  lower  forms? 

We  do  not  believe  that  Dr.  Woodrow  will  answer  these 
questions.    We  think  he  will  take  refuge  in  silence.  We 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


807 


say  this  because  we  have  in  vain  tried  to  get  an  explicit 
declaration  from  him  for  a  year. 

The  foregoing  is  a  fair  sample  of  the  courtesy  of  which 
the  Central  Presbyterian  boasts.  Of  this  courtesy  we  will 
say  nothing;  but  of  many  of  the  intimations  contained  in 
the  article,  we  are  obliged  to  say  that  there  is  exactly  the 
same  amount  of  truth  in  them  that  there  is  in  the  first  state- 
ment it  made  during  the  present  discussion,  viz.,  that  "the 
language  he  [Dr.  Woodrow]  used  on  this  point  leaves  the 
impression  that  he  regards  it  ["the  Mosaic  account  of  crea- 
tion"] as  little  more  than  a  Hebrew  legend;"  the  same 
amount  of  truth  that  there  is  in  its  last  statement,  viz.,  that 
"Dr.  Woodrow  is  now  intimating  (if  we  can  understand  his 
delphic  utterances)  that  he  will  not  teach  evolution  if  they 
will  put  him  back  into  the  Seminary;"  and  the  same  amount 
of  truth  that  there  is  in  very  many  of  its  statements  of  his 
views  between  this  first  and  this  last — that  is,  there  is  no 
truth  at  all  in  them.  It  atempts  to  screen  itself  under  the 
plea  that  it  cannot  understand  what  he  says.  If  this  plea 
is  well-founded,  its  power  of  understanding  must  be  feeble 
indeed;  no  other  of  Dr.  Woodrow's  opponents,  or  of  those 
who  agree  with  him  either,  has  ever  complained  of  his  want 
of  clearness ;  nor,  we  may  add  in  view  of  the  charges  insin- 
uated above,  has  any  one  else  ever  charged  him  with  cow- 
ardice. This  has  been  left  for  the  "courteous"  Central  Pres- 
byterian. We  hope  it  will  not  complain  of  what  we  have 
now  said  as  "not  speaking  out  in  plain  language  that  every 
one  can  understand." 

At  first  when  we  read  the  above  questions,  we  decided  to 
take  no  notice  of  them  or  the  article  containing  them — not 
from  fear,  but  from  a  very  different  feeling.  But  yielding  to 
the  advice  of  friends,  we  have  concluded  to  answer  the 
questions,  notwithstanding  the  offensive  taunts  accompany- 
ing them. 

Dr.  Woodrow,  then,  gives  the  following  answers  : 
Q.  "i.  Do  you  believe  that  the  human  race  appeared  on 
the  earth  in  the  last  ten  thousand  years?" 
Ans.  Yes. 


808 


DR.  JAMKS  WOODROW. 


Q.  "2.  Do  you  believe  that  Adam,  as  to  his  body,  was  the 
product  of  a  gradual  evolution  from  the  lower  animal 
forms?" 

Ans.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  or  not.  If  the  Bible 
does  not  teach  the  contrary,  (and  I  do  not  see  that  it  does,) 
then  it  may  have  been  so,  and  I  think  that  it  probably  was 
so. 

Q.  "3.  Do  you  believe  that  Adam  appeared  suddenly  on 
the  earth  as  a  miraculous  birth  or  creation  from  some 
inferior  animal  species?" 

Ans.  I  believe  that  Adam  as  Adam,  that  is,  as  a  being 
consisting  of  body  and  soul,  appeared  suddenly  on  the 
earth  as  a  miraculous  creation.  Between  the  hypotheses 
that  God  created  man  by  adding  the  human  soul  to  an 
image  of  clay,  and  that  he  created  him  by  adding  it  to  an 
animal  body  which  he  had  prepared  for  it,  I  regard  the 
latter  as  more  probable,  in  the  absence  of  definite  Scripture 
teaching. 

Q.  "4.  Was  there  any  essential  difference  in  the  process 
by  which  man  (as  to  his  body)  was  evolved,  and  that  by 
which  the  horse  was  evolved  from  lower  forms?" 

Ans.  I  do  not  know.  But,  provided  the  Scriptures  do  not 
settle  the  question,  as  I  said  in  my  Address,  p.  17:  "There 
would  seem  to  be  no  ground  for  attributing  a  different 
origin  to  man's  body  from  that  which  should  be  attributed 
to  animals :  if  the  existing  animal  species  were  immediately 
created,  so  was  man;  if  they  were  derived  from  ancestors 
unlike  themselves,  so  may  man  have  been."  And  inasmuch 
as  God  now  creates  each  man's  body  and  each  horse's  body 
by  making  them  pass  through  almost  exactly  the  same  kinds 
of  changes  on  the  way  to  maturity,  and  inasmuch  as  the 
man's  body  and  the  horse's  body  resemble  each  other  so 
closely  anatomically  and  physiologically,  I  regard  it  as  prob- 
able that  God  made  the  forms  from  which  he  caused  them  to 
descend  to  pass  through  similar  changes  in  reaching  their 
present  stage,  provided  there  is  nothing  in  the  Bible  that 
contradicts  this  view ;  and  I  know  of  nothing  there  that  does 
contradict  it. — Oct.  15. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


809 


Desire  to  Close  Discussion. 

We  publish  to-day  the  official  account  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina  at  its  recent  meeting.  We 
may  hereafter  publish  a  report  of  the  discussion  touching 
the  affairs  of  the  Theological  Seminary;  but  if  we  do  so,  it 
will  be  without  note  or  comment.  We  have  no  wish  to  con- 
tinue the  discussion  of  the  points  involved. 

Nor  do  we  deem  it  necessary  or  desirable  to  continue  the 
discussion  of  any  of  the  matters  which  have  so  largely  occu- 
pied the  attention  of  our  Church  during  the  last  eighteen 
months.  Dr.  Woodrow's  views  as  to  the  chief  topic  in 
debate  must  be  understood  by  this  time  by  all  who  desire 
to  understand  them,  and  who  have  read  his  own  statements 
of  them.  Correct  statements  in  the  journals  of  our  Church, 
we  are  sorry  to  say,  have  been  rare,  outside  the  columns  of 
the  South  Atlantic  Presbyterian,  the  St.  Louis  Presbyterian, 
this  journal,  and  the  pages  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian 
Review.  Distortions  and  perversions  have  abounded,  and 
have  misled  multitudes  of  our  people  in  every  part  of  the 
Church.  If  Dr.  Woodrow  held  the  opinions  which  have 
been  repeatedly  attributed  to  him,  we  would  regard  him  as 
utterly  unworthy  of  a  place  in  our  ministry.  But  we  have 
published  corrections  again  and  again,  but  all  in  vain,  so  far  as 
the  authors  of  the  distortions  and  perversions  are  concerned. 
We  think  we  have  fully  discharged  our  duty  in  this  respect ; 
and  we  hope  our  readers  will  agree  with  us  in  thinking  that 
in  the  future  we  may  with  propriety  leave  unnoticed  all 
misrepresentations,  however  gross.  We  know  that  a  very 
large  proportion  of  our  readers  agree  with  us  that  the  past 
discussion,  however  distasteful  to  them  as  well  as  to  our- 
selves, was  forced  upon  us,  and  could  not  have  been  avoided 
without  grievous  neglect  of  duty  on  our  part.  Now,  this 
duty  done,  after  to-day's  issue,  we  turn  away  from  it  with 
pleasure.  And  if  any  wish  to  continue  to  misrepresent  and 
vilify  us,  they  can  do  it  safely  to  their  heart's  content. 

Of  course,  we  do  not  mean  that  we  shall  never  refer  to 
any  of  the  topics  involved;  it  may  be  desirable  and  even 
necessary  to  do  this  from  time  to  time  in  the  interests  of 
the  truth  and  religion.    But  we  need  hardly  say  to  those 


810 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


who  have  been  familiar  with  our  columns  for  the  last 
twenty  years  that  we  seldom,  if  ever,  discussed  scientific 
matters  in  any  of  their  aspects,  until  the  discussion  now  end- 
ing was  forced  upon  us.  We  trust  we  may  now  be  per- 
mitted to  return  to  that  which  had  always  previously  been 
our  uniform  course. — Oct.  29. 


Is  It  Untrue? 

As  we  stated  three  weeks  ago,  the  Central  Presbyterian 
of  the  previous  week  charged  that  a  certain  statement  made 
by  one  of  our  correspondents  was  "untrue  in  spirit  and  even 
in  the  letter."  The  following  week  we  said:  "We  respect- 
fully request  the  Central  Presbyterian  to  state  what  the 
charge  is  to  which  it  refers,  and  to  specify  the  particulars 
wherein  it  is  untrue,  and  we  will  gladly  publish  the  correc- 
tion without  delay." 

To  this  request  there  has  been  no  response.  We  have 
therefore  tried,  without  help  from  that  quarter,  to  discover 
what  the  charge  in  question  was.  As  the  result  of  this 
effort  we  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  the 
remark  that  "one  of  its  [the  Central  Presbyterian's]  editors 
was  not  even  a  professor  of  religion."  The  point  our  corre- 
spondent was  insisting  upon  was  that  the  editor  of  a  Pres- 
byterian paper  is  a  religious  teacher,  and  that  a  Presbyterian 
religious  teacher  ought  surely  to  be  at  least  a  professor  of 
religion,  that  is,  a  communicant  in  the  Church ;  and  then  he 
stated  that  one  of  the  editors  of  the  Central  Presbyterian  was 
not  a  professor  of  religion.  It  is  evidently  this  statement  which 
that  journal  pronounces  "untrue  in  spirit  and  even  in  the 
letter." 

We  have  made  the  inquiries  necessary  to  ascertain  the 
truth,  and  we  rind  that  it  was  certainly  true  at  the  begin- 
ning of  this  month  that  one  of  the  editors  of  the  Central 
Presbyterian,  Dr.  James  C.  Southall,  was  not  a  communicant 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  We  do  not  know  whether  he 
is  a  communicant  in  any  other  Church  or  not ;  but  it  is  "true 
in  spirit  and  even  in  the  letter"  that  he  is  not  a  communi- 
cant in  the  Presbyterian  Church.    If  an  attempt  should  be 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


811 


made  to  evade  the  truth  by  saying  that  while  he  is  not  a 
communicant,  yet  he  is  in  some  sense  a  "professor  of  relig- 
ion," the  evasion  would  be  too  pitiful  to  deserve  notice: 
every  one  understood  our  correspondent  to  use  (as  every 
one  else  does)  the  expression  "professor  of  religion"  as 
exactly  synonymous  with  "communicant." 

As  to  the  propriety  of  making  the  statement,  we  think  a 
little  reflection  will  convince  any  one  that  it  was  proper. 
The  editors  of  the  Central  Presbyterian  are  referred  to  as 
authorities  as  to  Presbyterian  doctrine  and  practice;  and 
we  cannot  see  why  objection  should  be  made  to  a  statement 
which  shows  that  one  of  these  authorities  is  not  subject  to 
the  Church's  jurisdiction,  and  that,  while  defending  the 
Church  and  seeking  to  extend  its  influence,  he  does  not 
himself  take  even  the  first  step  in  becoming  part  of  it  by 
entering  its  communion.  Further,  Dr.  Southall  is  one  of  the 
editors  of  "six  of  the  old,  established  journals  of  the  Church" 
publicly  referred  to  to  prove  what  are  the  "prevailing  and 
recognised  views  of  the  Church."  Surely  it  is  fair  to  scrutin- 
ise the  list  presented  for  so  weighty  a  purpose;  and  it 
cannot  be  improper  to  point  out  that  one  of  the  number 
is  without  the  right  to  be  quoted  as  a  representative  of  the 
Church's  views  by  the  fact  that  he  is  not  within  the  pale  of 
her  communion. 

We  have  taken  pains  to  verify  every  word  of  the  fore- 
going; but  we  again  say  to  the  Central  Presbyterian,  that  if 
we  have  not  stated  the  exact  truth,  we  will  gladly  publish  its 
correction  without  a  moment's  delay.  Will  it  publish  a 
withdrawal  of  its  assertion  concerning  us,  which  we  have 
now  disproved,  that  "in  the  last  issue  of  the  Southern  Pres- 
byterian, through  the  medium  of  a  correspondent,  he  utters 
a  charge,  untrue  in  spirit,  and  even  in  the  letter"? — Oct.  29. 


Does  the  Bible  Teach  Natural  Science? 

Although  Mr.  Gladstone  might  have  been  supposed  to 
have  had  his  hands  too  full  of  other  work  to  take  up  the 
discussion  of  scriptural  and  scientific  subjects,  even  before 
the  government  of  the  mighty  British  empire  was  again 


812 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


intrusted  to  him,  yet  he  found  time  last  November  and 
January  to  publish  in  the  Nineteenth  Century  two  vigorous 
articles  in  defence  of  Genesis  against  the  attacks  of  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Reville  of  France.  Several  distinguished  writers 
have  participated  in  the  resulting  discussion,  notably  Pro- 
fessor Huxley,  Professor  Drummond,  and  Sir  William  Daw- 
son. We  allude  to  this  discussion,  not  for  the  purpose  of 
engaging  in  it  or  even  of  giving  an  account  of  the  proposi- 
tions maintained,  but  that  we  may  set  before  our  readers 
the  opinions  of  three  of  these  writers  as  to  a  fundamental 
point  in  seeking  to  ascertain  the  true  relation  between  the 
interpretation  of  the  word  and  of  the  works  of  God.  All 
three  are  earnest  Christians  with  all  the  heart  accepting  the 
Bible  as  the  word  of  God. 
Mr.  Gladstone  says : 

"I  do  not  think  Mr.  Huxley  has  ever  endeavored  to  under- 
stand what  is  the  idea,  what  is  the  intention,  which  his 
opponent  ascribes  to  the  Mosaic  writer ;  or  what  is  the  con- 
ception which  his  opponent  forms  of  the  weighty  word 
Revelation.  He  holds  the  writer  responsible  for  scientific 
precision:  I  look  for  nothing  of  the  kind;  but  assign  to 
him  a  statement  general,  which  admits  exceptions ;  popular, 
which  aims  mainly  at  producing  moral  impression;  sum- 
mary, which  cannot  but  be  open  to  more  or  less  of  criticism 
in  detail.  He  thinks  it  is  a  lecture.  I  think  it  is  a  sermon. 
He  describes  living  creatures  by  structure.  The  Mosaic 
writer  describes  them  by  habitat.  Both  I  suppose  are  right. 
I  suppose  that  description  by  habitat  would  be  unavailing  for 
the  purposes  of  science.  I  feel  sure  that  description  by 
structure,  such  as  the  geologists  supply,  would  have  been 
unavailing  for  the  purpose  of  summary  teaching  with  relig- 
ious aim  

"Proceeding,  on  what  I  hold  to  be  open  ground,  to  state 
my  own  idea  of  the  true  key  to  the  meaning  of  the  Mosaic 
record,  I  suggest  that  it  was  intended  to  give  moral,  and 
not  scientific,  instruction  to  those  for  whom  it  was  written. 
That  for  the  Adamic  race,  recent  on  earth,  and  young  in 
faculties,  the  traditions  here  incorporated,  which  were  prob- 
ably far  older  than  the  Book,  had  a  natural  and  a  highly 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


813 


moral  purpose  in  conveying  to  their  minds  a  lively  sense 
of  the  wise  and  loving  care  with  which  the  Almighty  Father, 
who  demanded  much  at  their  hands,  had  beforehand  given 
them  much,  in  the  provident  adaptation  of  the  world  to  be 
their  dwelling-place,  and  of  the  created  orders  for  their  use 
and  rule.  It  appears  to  me  that,  given  the  very  nature  of 
the  Scriptures,  this  is  clearly  the  rational  point  of  view. 
If  it  is  so,  then,  it  follows,  that  just  as  the  tradition  described 
earth,  air,  and  heaven  in  the  manner  in  which  they  super- 
ficially presented  themselves  to  the  daily  experience  of 
man — not  scientifically  but 

The  common  air,  the  sun,  the  skies — 

so  he  spoke  of  fishes,  of  birds,  of  beasts,  of  what  man  was 
most  concerned  with ;  and  last  in  the  series,  of  man  himself, 
largely  and  generally,  as  facts  of  his  experience ;  from  which 
great  moral  lessons  of  wonder,  gratitude,  and  obedience 
were  to  be  deduced,  to  aid  him  in  the  great  work  of  his  life 
training. 

"If  further  proof  be  wanting,  that  what  the  Mosaic  writer 
had  in  his  mind  were  the  creatures  with  which  Adamic  man 
was  conversant,  we  have  it  in  the  direct  form  of  verse 
28,  which  gives  to  man  for  meat  the  fruit  of  every  seed- 
yielding  tree,  and  every  seed-yielding  herb,  and  the  domin- 
ion of  every  beast,  fowl,  and  reptile  living.  There  is  here  a 
marked  absence  of  reference  to  any  but  the  then  living 
species. 

"This,  then,  is  the  key  to  the  meaning  of  the  Book,  and  of 
the  tradition,  if,  as  I  suppose,  it  was  before  the  Book,  which 
seems  to  me  to  offer  the  most  probable,  and  therefore  the 
rational  guide  to  its  interpretation.  .  .  . 

"Now,  as  regards  the  first  two  heads,  these  omissions, 
enormous  with  reference  to  the  scientific  record,  are  com- 
pletely in  harmony  with  the  probable  aim  of  the  Mosaic 
writer,  as  embracing  only  the  formation  of  the  objects  and 
creatures  with  which  early  man  was  conversant.  The  intro- 
duction of  these  orders,  invisible  and  unknown,  would  have 
been  not  agreeable,  but  injurious,  to  his  purpose." 

Professor  Drummond  says : 


814 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


"But  to  return  to  Genesis.  Those  modern  critics,  believ- 
ing or  unbelieving,  who  have  studied  the  Biblical  books  as 
literature — studied  them,  for  instance,  as  Professor  Dowden 
has  studied  Shakespeare — concur  in  pronouncing  the  Bible 
absolutely  free  from  natural  science.  They  find  there  his- 
tory, poetry,  moral  philosophy,  theology,  lives  and  letters, 
mystical,  devotional,  and  didactic  pieces ;  but  science  there 
is  none.  Natural  objects  are,  of  course,  repeatedly  referred 
to,  and  with  unsurpassed  sympathy  and  accuracy  of  observ- 
ation ;  but  neither  in  the  intention  of  any  of  the  innumera- 
ble authors  nor  in  the  execution  of  their  work  is  there  any 
direct  trace  of  scientific  teaching.  Could  any  one  with  any 
historic  imagination  for  a  moment  expect  that  there  would 
have  been?  There  was  no  science  then.  Scientific  ques- 
tions were  not  even  asked  then.  To  have  given  men  science 
would  not  only  have  been  an  anacronism,  but  a  source  of 
mystification  and  confusion  all  along  the  line.  The  almost 
painful  silence — indeed,  the  absolute  sterility — of  the  Bible 
with  regard  to  science  is  so  marked  as  to  have  led  men  to 
question  the  very  beneficence  of  God.  Why  was  not  the 
use  of  the  stars  explained  to  navigators,  or  chloroform  to 
surgeons?  Why  is  a  man  left  to  die  on  the  hill-side  when 
the  medicinal  plant  which  could  save  him,  did  he  but  know 
it,  lies  at  his  feet?  What  is  it  to  early  man  to  know  how 
the  moon  was  made?  What  he  wants  to  know  is  how 
bread  is  made.  How  fish  are  to  be  caught,  fowls  snared, 
beasts  trapped  and  their  skins  tanned — these  are  his  prob- 
lems. Doubtless  there  are  valid  reasons  why  the  Bible  does 
not  contain  a  technological  dictionary  and  a  pharmacopoeia, 
or  anticipate  the  'Encyclopaedia  Britannica/  But  that  it 
does  not  inform  us  on  these  practical  matters  is  surely  a 
valid  argument  why  we  should  not  expect  it  to  instruct  the 
world  in  geology  

"Genesis  is  a  presentation  of  one  or  two  great  elementary 
truths  to  the  childhood  of  the  world.  It  can  only  be  read 
aright  in  the  spirit  in  which  it  was  written,  with  its  original 
purpose  in  view,  and  its  original  audience.  What  did  it 
mean  to  them?  What  would  they  understand  by  it?  What 
did  they  need  to  know  and  not  to  know? 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


815 


"To  expand  the  constructive  answers  to  these  questions 
in  detail  does  not  fall  within  our  province  here.  What  we 
have  to  note  is,  that  a  scientific  theory  of  the  universe 
formed  no  part  of  the  original  writer's  intention.  Dating 
from  the  childhood  of  the  world,  written  for  children,  and 
for  that  child-spirit  in  man  which  remains  unchanged  by 
time,  it  takes  color  and  shape  accordingly.  Its  object  is 
purely  religious,  the  point  being  not  how  certain  things 
were  made,  but  that  God  made  them.  It  is  not  dedicated  to 
science,  but  to  the  soul.  It  is  a  sublime  theology,  given  in 
view  of  ignorance  or  idolatry  or  polytheism,  telling  the  wor- 
shipful youth  of  the  world  that  the  heavens  and  the  earth 
and  every  creeping  and  flying  thing  were  made  by  God. 
What  world-spirit  teaches  men  to  finger  its  fluid  numbers 
like  a  science  catalogue,  and  discuss  its  days  in  terms  of 
geological  formations?  What  blindness  pursues  them,  that 
they  mark  the  things  he  made  only  with  their  museum 
labels,  and  think  they  have  exhausted  its  contribution  when 
they  have  never  even  been  within  sight  of  it?  This  is  not 
even  atheism.    It  is  simple  illiterateness. 

"The  first  principle  which  must  rule  our  reading  of  this 
book  is  the  elementary  canon  of  all  literary  criticism,  which 
decides  that  any  interpretation  of  a  part  of  a  book  or  of  a 
literature  must  be  controlled  by  the  dominant  purpose  or 
motif  of  the  whole.  And  when  one  investigates  that  domi- 
nant purpose  in  the  case  of  the  Bible,  he  finds  it  reducing 
itself  to  one  thing — religion.  No  matter  what  view  is  taken 
of  the  composition  or  authorship  of  the  several  books,  this 
feature  secures  immediate  and  universal  recognition.  .  .  . 

"Here  lies  the  whole  matter.  It  is  involved  in  the  mere 
meaning  of  revelation,  and  proved  by  its  whole  expression, 
that  its  subject  matter  is  that  which  men  could  not  find  out 
for  themselves.  Men  could  find  out  the  order  in  which  the 
world  was  made.  What  they  could  not  find  out  was  that 
God  made  it.  To  this  day  they  have  not  found  that  out. 
Even  some  of  the  wisest  of  our  contemporaries,  after  trying 
to  find  that  out  for  half  a  lifetime,  have  been  forced  to  give  it 
up.  Hence  the  true  function  of  revelation.  Nature  in 
Genesis  has  no  link  with  geology,  seeks  none  and  needs 


816 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


none;  man  has  no  link  with  biology,  and  misses  none. 
What  he  really  needs  and  really  misses — for  he  can  get  it 
nowhere  else — Genesis  gives  him ;  it  links  Nature  and  man 
with  their  Maker.  And  this  is  the  one  high  sense  in  which 
Genesis  can  be  said  to  be  scientific.  The  scientific  man  must 
go  there  to  complete  his  science,  or  it  remains  forever 
Incomplete.  Let  him  no  longer  resort  thither  to  attack  what 
is  not  really  there.  What  is  really  there  he  can  not  attack, 
for  he  can  not  do  without  it.  Nor  let  religion  plant  positions 
there  which  can  only  keep  science  out.  Then  only  can  the 
interpreters  of  Nature  and  the  interpreters  of  Genesis 
understand  each  other." 

Sir  William  Dawson  says  in  the  Expositor  for  April,  pp.  293, 
297-8 :  |  .j   ;   \  j  j 

"There  are,  however,  known  to  us  in  the  Mesozoic  period 
a  few  small  marsupial  mammals,  humble  and  insignificant 
precursors  of  the  mammalia.  These  our  author  [Moses] 
has  apparently  overlooked ;  but  he  has  an  excuse  for  this  in 
the  fact  that  such  creatures  do  not  occur  in  modern  times, 
except  in  Australia  or  America,  and  even  if  known  to  him, 
he  had  no  special  word  by  which  they  could  be  designated." 

"This  first  half  of  the  sixth  day  is  therefore  occupied  in 
the  introduction  of  the  mammalia  of  the  land.  This  com- 
pletes the  animal  population  of  the  world  with  the  exception 
of  the  whales  and  their  allies,  which  strangely  are  not 
included  in  the  narrative.  Perhaps  it  was  this  apparent 
omission  that  induced  the  Septuagint  translators  to  insert 
these  marine  mammals  instead  of  the  crocodile  as  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  tanninim.  The  omission  has,  however,  a 
curious  significance,  in  connexion  with  the  probability  that 
this  creation  document  originated  before  the  removal  of  men 
from  their  primitive  abodes  in  interior  Asia,  and  when  the 
whales,  as  well  as  the  marsupial  mammals  already  referred 
to,  must  have  been  unknown  to  them.  That  the  Septuagint 
translators,  living  on  the  borders  of  the  Mediterranean, 
should  regard  the  omission  of  whales  as  a  defect  in  the 
record  was  most  natural ;  but  if  the  original  narrator  and 
his  audience  were  inland  people,  dwelling  perhaps  in  the 
plain  of  Shinar,  they  may  have  been  ignorant  of  whales  or 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


817 


of  any  name  for  such  creatures,  and  it  is  in  such  a  case  as 
this  that  we  may  legitimately  apply  the  doctrine,  that  the 
Bible  was  not  intended  to  teach  science." — April  15,,  1886. 


A  Fair  and  Truthful  Statement. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Farris,  editor  of  the  St.  Louis  Presbyterian, 
is  one  of  the  most  decided  opponents  of  the  doctrine  of  evo- 
lution in  our  Church,  but  he  is  a  fair-minded  and  truth- 
loving  man  who  does  not  allow  his  statements  of  facts  to 
be  warped  by  his  opinions.  Referring  to  a  matter  which 
has  again  been  brought  up  for  discussion,  the  St.  Louis 
Presbyterian  of  last  week  says : 

"2.  It  is  a  fact  that  Dr.  Woodrow  has  never  taught  Evo- 
lution in  the  Seminary. 

"3.  It  is  another  fact  that  Dr.  Woodrow  has  pledged  him- 
self not  to  teach  Evolution  in  the  Seminary. 

"4.  It  is  still  another  fact  that,  agreeing  with  Kellogg  and 
Hodge  and  McCosh  that  the  Bible  does  not  tell  how  man 
was  created,  Dr.  Woodrow,  as  a  scientist,  has,  in  compliance 
with  request,  delivered,  outside  of  the  Seminary,  his  opinion 
of  what  is  'probably  true'  on  that  point. 

"5.  It  is  also  still  another  fact  that,  for  this  scientific 
opinion,  given  outside  of  the  Seminary,  in  response  to 
request,  a  hue  and  cry  was  raised  against  his  soundness  in 
the  faith,  notwithstanding  his  reiteration  of  his  most  hearty 
acceptance  of  the  Scriptures  as  the  inspired  word  of  God. 

"6.  The  'friends'  of  Dr.  Woodrow — rather,  the  friends  of 
Law  and  Order,  the  friends  of  Right  and  Justice,  the  friends 
of  our  noble  Presbyterian  system — insisted  that  he  should 
not  be  cast  out  by  the  neck  and  heels,  but  covenant  obliga- 
tions should  be  observed,  the  Law  should  be  obeyed,  and 
Dr.  Woodrow  should  be  'fully  tried/  according  to  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  Seminary. 

"7.  This  point  having  been  disposed  of,  the  Law  having 
been  vindicated,  another  question  now  comes  up,  viz.,  'Is 
Evolution  as  held  by  Dr.  Woodrow  as  a  scientific  hypothe- 
sis, contrary  to  the  word  of  God?'  [If  we  understand  them, 
Kellogg  and  Hodge  and  McCosh  must  say,  'Xo,  for  the 


52— w 


818 


DR.  JAMKS  WOODROW. 


reason  that  the  Bible  is  silent  on  that  particular.'  We 
believe  that  it  is  contrary  both  to  Science  and  Scripture.] 
This  question  is  before  the  Presbytery  of  Augusta,  the 
court  of  which  Dr.  Woodrow  is  a  member,  and  whose 
solemn  duty  it  is  to  watch  his  doctrinal  soundness  and 

protect  his  good  name  

"Let  the  question  come  to  the  Assembly  without  trammel, 
be  discussed,  not  by  committed  partisans,  but  by  truth- 
loving,  God-fearing  men,  and  be  decided,  not  by  the  brute 
force  of  a  majority  (as  in  the  infamous  ipso  facto  decree 
of  1866),  but  after  free  and  full  debate  in  which  the  minority 
shall  have  been  duly  heard.  Truth  will  always  conquer  in  a 
fair  combat.  Strangled  discussion  is  intolerable  to  Presby- 
terianism." — April  15. 


Drs.  Hodge;  and  Patton  and  Evolution. 

In  another  column  we  publish  a  letter  on  Evolution  by 
Professor  A.  A.  Hodge,  and  extracts  from  an  article  by 
Professor  F.  L.  Patton  on  the  same  subject.  We  wish  now 
to  point  out  the  bearing  of  their  opinions,  as  here  expressed, 
on  the  question  which  has  again  with  renewed  zeal  been 
brought  before  our  Church.  For  some  time  we  have 
abstained  from  all  discussion  of  the  subject;  but  the  active 
renewal  of  the  agitation  by  others  renders  it  impossible  for 
us  to  maintain  absolute  silence,  however  much  we  might 
desire  to  do  so. 

At  this  time  we  do  not  intend  so  much  to  present  our  own 
views  as  to  show  the  results  of  a  fair  application  of  the 
propositions  maintained  by  these  Princeton  Professors. 

It  should  be  carefully  noted  at  the  outset  that  the  Church 
is  not,  and  cannot  possibly  become,  interested  in  the  ques- 
tion of  the  truth  or  falsity  of  Evolution  in  any  of  its 
aspects  as  a  scientific  doctrine.  God  has  not  intrusted  to 
his  Church  the  duty  of  inquiring  into  and  determining  the 
truth  of  any  question  in  science.  All  admit  and  insist  on 
this  without  hesitation  when  brought  face  to  face  with  the 
following  judgment  of  an  ecclesiastical  court : 

"That  the  Sun  is  the  centre  of  the  universe  and  doth  not 
move  from  his  place  is  a  proposition  absurd  and  false  in 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


819 


philosophy;  .  .  .  that  the  Earth  is  not  the  centre  of  the 
universe  nor  immovable,  but  that  it  moves,  even  with  a 
diurnal  motion,  is  likewise  a  proposition  absurd  and  false 
in  philosophy."  Unanimously  adopted  by  the  "Holy  Tribu- 
nal of  the  Supreme  Inquisition,"  1633. 

But  there  may  be  some,  perhaps  even  the  entire  member- 
ship of  some  Southern  Presbyterian  Synods,  who  think 
ecclesiastical  courts  have  been  authorised  by  God  as  his 
representatives  to  pronounce  in  his  name  such  judgments  as 
the  following : 

"That  we  regard  Evolution  as  an  unsolved  hypothesis." — 
Unanimously  adopted  by  the  Synod  of  Texas,  1884. 

"That  ....  what  is  known  as  the  'theory  of  Evolution' 
.  .  .  being  as  yet  only  an  unproved  hypothesis  ;  .  .  .  ought 
not  to  be  taught  in  any  of  our  institutions  of  learning." 
Further  that  it  belongs  to  the  class  of  "theories  which  have 
not  received,  and  most  probably  never  will  receive,  the 
acceptance  of  the  scientific  world." — Unanimously  adopted 
by  the  Synod  of  Kentucky,  1884. 

What  we  are  maintaining  is  not  that  these  judgments 
are  false  or  that  they  are  true;  but  that  whether  true  or 
false,  they  are  outside  the  province  intrusted  to  the  Church 
by  its  Head.  God  has  given  to  his  Church  for  its  guidance 
the  infallible  Sacred  Scriptures ;  to  it  these  are  the  final  and 
the  sole  test  of  truth ;  when  the  truth  or  falsity  of  any  doc- 
trine cannot  be  ascertained  by  this  test,  the  Church  has 
nothing  to  do  with  such  ascertainment;  it  lies  beyond  its 
domain;  and  it  is  only  by  a  disloyal  disregard  of  its  Sov- 
ereign's laws  that  it  can  dare  to  sit  in  judgment  on  any- 
thing outside.  This  is  universally  true ;  a  church  court  has 
no  more  right  to  pronounce  judgment  in  favor  of  the  doc- 
trine that  the  earth  moves  and  is  a  sphere  than  in  favor  of 
the  doctrine  that  it  does  not  move  and  is  flat;  it  has  no 
right  either  to  endorse  or  to  condemn  the  law  of  gravita- 
tion ;  it  is  violating  its  duty  when  it  either  affirms  or  denies 
the  existence  of  the  man  in  the  moon. 

To  the  Church  and  to  church  courts  the  terms  "true"  and 
"scriptural"  are  convertible,  and  so  also  the  terms  "false" 
and  "anti-scriptural."    Therefore  when  the  Church's  atten- 


820 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


tion  is  called  to  a  doctrine,  if  it  finds  that  it  is  contrary  to 
the  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  it  is  its  duty  to  condemn  it  as 
false;  if  it  finds  that  it  agrees  with  the  doctrines  of  the 
Bible,  it  has  the  right  to  decide  that  it  is  true;  if  the  doc- 
trine in  question  is  found  neither  to  contradict  nor  to  agree 
with  the  teachings  of  the  Bible,  the  Church  is  setting  at 
naught  the  laws  of  its  sole  Lawgiver  and  King  if  it  expresses 
any  opinion  on  the  subject. 

Hence  the  Church  as  such  is  not  interested  in  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  doctrine  of  Evolution  is  true  or  false 
except  in  this  sense,  that  is,  whether  it  is  scriptural  or  anti- 
scriptural.  So  likewise,  as  members  of  the  Church  and 
believers  in  the  Bible,  we  are  indifferent  as  to  what  may  be 
the  aftitude  of  any  one  in  the  scientific  controversy.  Pro- 
fessors Hodge  and  Patton  seem  to  be  very  decided  Anti- 
Evolutionists ;  but  we  are  at  present  concerned  not  with 
that  fact,  but  solely  with  the  result  of  a  fair  application  of 
the  opinions  they  avow  to  the  question,  Is  Evolution,  as 
now  before  our  Church,  anti-scriptural? 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  the  Church  is  interested  in  Evo- 
lution only  so  far  as  it  applies  to  man ;  that  we  may  admit 
the  truth  of  it  so  far  as  it  refers  to  the  animals  without 
contradicting  the  Bible ;  but  that  we  squarely  contradict  the 
Bible  if  we  admit  the  possibility  of  its  truth  in  the  case  of 
Adam's  body.  We  have  never  been  able  to  appreciate  this 
distinction,  for,  while  the  Bible  says,  "The  Lord  God  formed 
man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,"  it  equally  says  in  the  same 
chapter,  "Out  of  the  ground  the  Lord  God  formed  every 
beast  of  the  field,  and  every  fowl  of  the  air."  As  it  would 
hardly  be  claimed  that  there  is  here  any  difference  between 
"ground"  and  "dust  of  the  ground,"  if  it  is  not  contradicting 
the  Bible  to  say  that  Evolution  may  be  true  in  the  case  of 
animals,  it  cannot  be  contradicting  the  Bible  to  say  that  it 
may  be  true  in  the  case  of  Adam's  body  which  was  "formed" 
in  the  same  way.  If  any  one  admits  or  maintains  that  Evo- 
lution may  be  true  so  far  as  the  Bible  is  concerned  in  the  one 
case,  he  equally  admits  or  maintains  that  it  may  be  true  in 
the  other. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


821 


The  assertion  that  Evolution  as  applied  to  Adam's  body 
contradicts  the  Bible  is  based  on  the  statement  that  "dust 
of  the  ground"  means  inorganic  matter  and  that  out  of  this 
inorganic  matter  Adam's  body  was  immediately  formed. 
Now  Professor  Hodge  says  not  merely  that  the  expression 
"does  not  mean  simply  'dust,'  "  but  that  "it  would  be  very 
childish"  to  think  so.  He  says  that  "what  is  meant  is  that 
God  made  man  out  of  pre-existing  elements,"  without  set- 
tling the  nature  of  these  elements  beyond  this :  that  in  his 
opinion  they  were  not  "simply  'dust.'  "  It  is  true,  as  Dr. 
Hodge  further  says,  that  "to  say  that  God  created  the  body 
of  Adam  out  of  pre-existing  materials"  is  "very  different 
from  saying  that  it  was  produced  by  a  natural  process  of 
generation  from  the  bodies  of  brute  ancestors ;"  but  while 
the  latter  assertion  is  different  from  the  former,  it  is  evident 
that  the  former  does  not  deny  that  the  "pre-existing  mate- 
rials" may  have  been  organic,  or  that  they  may  even  have 
been  organic  matter  constituting  an  organised  being.  If,  as 
Dr.  Hodge  maintains,  the  Bible  does  not  tell  us  the  nature  of 
the  pre-existing  materials,  then  to  say  that  they  were 
organic  cannot  contradict  the  Bible  any  more  than  to  say 
that  they  were  inorganic.  If  the  Bible  is  silent  as  to  their 
nature,  how  can  any  assertion  touching  that  nature  contra- 
dict its  silence? 

Another  point  in  Dr.  Hodge's  letter,  to  which  we  direct 
attention,  is  his  remark  that  "Evolution  as  a  working 
hypothesis  of  scientific  men.  .  .  .  threatens  no  interest  with 
which  we  are  concerned."  This  seems  plainly  to  admit  that 
Evolution  whether  true  or  not,  does  not  contradict  the 
Bible;  for  if  it  does,  it  certainly  could  not  be  said  that  it 
"threatens  no  interest  with  which  we  are  concerned." 
"Evolution  as  a  working  hypothesis  of  scientific  men" 
assumes  that  existing  "beasts  of  the  field  and  fowl  of  the 
air"  are  the  descendants  of  ancestors  different  from  them- 
selves which  lived  ages  and  ages  before  man  was  created; 
the  Bible  says  that  "out  of  the  ground"  the  Lord  God 
formed  these  beasts  and  fowl ;  now  if  the  former  hypothesis 
does  not  threaten  the  latter  statement,  it  must  be,  in  Dr. 


822 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Hodge's  opinion,  because  this  statement  is  not  contradicted 
by  that  hypothesis. 

For  reasons  already  given,  we  do  not  care  now  to  discuss 
the  probable  truth  of  any  part  of  Evolution;  but  if  we  did, 
it  would  be  necessary  to  point  out  that  Dr.  Hodge  seems  to 
be  thinking  of  some  scheme  of  Evolution  which  is  not  held 
by  leading  Evolutionists  to  whom  the  world  chiefly  looks. 
When  he  speaks  of  "Evolution  which  hypothecates  sponta- 
neous generation,"  he  must  have  forgotten  Darwin,  who  dis- 
tinctly recognises  the  stream  of  life  as  originating  in  forms 
immediately  created  by  God.  And  he  must  have  forgotten 
that  leading  Evolutionists  have  been  most  prominent 
recently  in  disproving  the  doctrine  of  spontaneous  genera- 
tion— so  far  are  they  from  "hypothecating"  it.  But  we  will 
not  discuss  his  objections  to  Evolution ;  for  when  he  has 
shown  his  belief  that  the  Bible  does  not  settle  the  nature 
of  the  materials  used  in  the  creation  of  Adam's  body  and 
that  Evolution  as  a  working  hypothesis  threatens  no  inter- 
est in  which  we  as  believers  in  the  Bible  are  concerned, 
then  as  Bible  believers,  so  far  as  we  accept  his  views,  we 
are  totally  indifferent  to  the  whole  subject  of  Evolution. 

We  are  not  specially  anxious  or  alarmed  in  view  of  Dr. 
Hodge's  remark  that  "if  the  theory  of  Evolution  any  man 
holds  makes  room  for  the  Bible  account  of  Eve,  neither  the 
scientists,  nor  the  philosophers,  nor  the  theologians  will 
make  room  for  him."  We  hold  our  views  as  to  the  proba- 
ble truth  of  evolution  as  we  have  explained  and  limited  it, 
just  as  we  hold  our  views  on  the  doctrines  of  gravitation, 
wine-making,  mortality,  etc.  If  because  we  believe  these 
doctrines,  and  at  the  same  time  "make  room"  for  the  belief 
that  once  a  prophet  of  God  made  an  iron  axe  to  swim  upon 
water,  that  the  Son  of  God  changed  water  into  wine,  and 
that  he,  having  been  dead  and  buried,  came  to  life  again, — if, 
we  say,  with  these  beliefs,  "neither  the  scientists  nor  the 
theologians  will  make  room  for  us,"  then  so  much  the  worse 
for  the  scientists  and  the  theologians — we  cheerfully  part 
company  with  them.  We  believe  as  we  do  concerning  Eve 
because  we  regard  the  Bible  as  so  teaching.  And  if  we  could 
see  the  shadow  of  inconsistency  between  the  Bible  and  any 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


823 


apparently  probable  truth  in  evolution,  we  would  instantly 
reject  the  latter  as  false  because  thus  inconsistent.  But  we 
cannot  consent  to  give  up  what  we  regard  as  the  teaching  of 
God's  word  for  the  sake  of  the  approbation  of  either  scien- 
tists or  theologians  such  as  Dr.  Hodge  refers  to.  If  we  must 
give  up  our  belief  in  a  single  statement  of  God's  absolutely 
inerrant  word  in  order  to  have  room  made  for  us  amongst 
scientists,  and  if  we  must  give  up  our  right  to  inquire  with- 
out the  least  restraint  as  to  the  laws  by  which  God  controls 
his  material  universe  respecting  which  his  word  is  silent, 
in  order  to  have  room  made  for  us  amongst  theologians, 
then  we  desire  most  earnestly  to  remain  forever  in  absolute 
isolation  so  far  as  the  company  of  such  scientists  and  such 
theologians  is  concerned. 

We  wish  to  make  a  few  comments  on  the  extracts  from 
Dr.  Patton's  article;  but  these  we  must  defer  until  next 
week. — April  29. 


The  Rev.  Drs.  A.  A.  Hodge  and  F.  L.  Patton  on  Evolution. 

A  few  weeks  ago  the  Rev.  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge,  Professor  in 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary,  delivered  a  lecture  on  the 
origin  and  antiquity  of  man,  evolution,  etc.,  from  the  report 
of  which  we  published  extracts  showing  that  he  maintains 
that  "there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  it  [the  time  since 
Adam  was  created]  was  more  than  fifteen  or  sixteen  thou- 
sand years ;  but  whether  more  or  less,  revelation  has  not 
informed  us;"  and  further,  with  regard  to  the  "dust"  out 
of  which  God  made  the  body  of  Adam,  that  "it  would  be 
very  childish  to  put  a  literal  meaning  to  this  word  'dust!  It 
does  not  mean  simply  Must' ;  you  could  not  make  man  out 
of  commcTi  clay,  because  it  does  not  contain  all  the  elements 
which  constitute  man.  When  you  analyse  the  body  of  man, 
you  find  it  consists  of  lime,  phosphorus,  iron,  carbon,  nitro- 
gen, hydrogen,  and  a  great  many  other  elements.  These  do 
not  all  exist  in  clay.  What  is  meant  is,  that  God  made  man 
out  of  pre-existing  elements,  which  God  had  himself  first 
created.    These  are  everywhere." 

It  seems  that  these  same  extracts  were  afterwards  pub- 
lished in  the  Memphis  Appeal,  accompanied  with  remarks 


824 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


which  we  have  not  seen,  referring  to  views  held  by  Drs. 
McCosh,  Patton,  and  Hodge,  on  the  subject  of  evolution.  It 
will  be  remembered  that  we  said  we  would  be  glad  to  pub- 
lish what  he  [Professor  Hodge]  had  said  concerning  it 
[Evolution]  ;  but  that  he  had  stated  in  the  Presbyterian  that 
his  remarks  on  that  point  were  incorrectly  reported ;  there- 
fore we  were  not  able  to  do  as  we  desired. 

We  now  take  pleasure  in  presenting  Professor  Hodge's 
views  on  that  subject  also,  as  we  find  them  in  a  letter  pub- 
lished in  the  Memphis  Appeal  of  April  4th. 

Princeton,  N.  J.,  March  29,  1886. 

Dear  Sir: — I  am  much  obliged  to  you  and  your  friend 
for  calling  my  attention  to  the  use  made  of  certain  occa- 
sional utterances  of  Drs.  McCosh,  Patton,  and  myself  on  the 
subject  of  the  origin  of  man,  and  of  the  obviously  labored 
attempt  made  to  represent  us  as  sympathising  with  the  posi- 
tions occupied  by  the  party  of  advanced  opinions  now  agi- 
tating this  question  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church. 

While  feeling  strongly  and  thinking  definitely  on  the  sub- 
ject, we  have  conscientiously  avoided  all  reference  to  the 
painful  controversy  in  your  Church.  This  was  plainly  the 
duty  of  every  person  situated  as  we  are.  All  such  contro- 
versies come  instantly  to  involve  much  that  is  personal, 
local,  and  accidental,  in  addition  to  the  matters  of  fact  or 
principle  with  which  they  start;  therefore  both  because  we 
were  imperfectly  informed,  and  because  it  is  none  of  our 
business,  we  have  simply  held  our  tongues.  But  the  situa- 
tion is  altogether  changed  when  we  find  that  imperfect 
reports  of  extemporaneous  lectures,  and  inferences  from 
certain  written  opinions  are  used  to  connect  our  names  with, 
and  thus  render  us  constructively  responsible  for  positions 
and  issues  involved  in  your  controversy,  with  which 
neither  of  us  have  the  least  sympathy.  The  lecture  of  mine 
quoted,  in  part,  by  the  Memphis  Appeal  of  Sunday,  March 
21st,  was  never  written,  and  was  very  imperfectly  reported. 
The  part  which  referred  to  evolution,  and  its  relation  to  the 
origin  of  Adam,  is  altogether  omitted  in  the  Memphis  Appeal, 
If  it  had  been  given  correctly,  no  reader  would  ever  have 
questioned  again  on  which  side  I  stand  with  reference  to 
this  matter.  I  am  alone  responsible  for  this  letter,  but  I  am 
certain  that  I  accurately  represent  the  opinions  of  Drs. 
McCosh  and  Patton  as  well  as  my  own. 

Evolution  as  a  working  hypothesis  of  scientific  men  lies 
beyond  the  sphere  of  our  criticism,  and  threatens  no  interest 
with  which  we  are  concerned.    Science  has  authority  only 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


825 


because  it  deals  with  questions  capable  of  definite  verifica- 
tion. When  limited  definitely  to  her  own  sphere  she  is  not 
to  be  questioned,  and  cannot  be  resisted.  But  her  sphere 
is  correspondingly  narrow.  She  has  to  do  with  phenomena, 
things  capable  of  being  determined  by  the  senses,  and  their 
likenesses  and  unlikenesses,  their  co-existence  and  succes- 
sions. All  speculation  as  to  causes  and  final  ends  belongs 
to  the  department  of  philosophy.  And  the  current  philoso- 
phy of  evolution,  which  hypothecates  spontaneous  genera- 
tion, and  the  genetic  evolution  of  all  existing  living  beings 
from  the  same  primary  germs,  has  as  little  of  the  character 
of  real  science,  and  as  little  of  its  authority,  as  any  other 
philosophical  speculation  which  ever  transiently  troubled 
the  currents  of  human  thought.  There  is  no  evidence  that 
demands  serious  consideration  to  prove  that  man  was  origin- 
ally generated  from  non-human  ancestors.  It  is  preposter- 
ous to  teach  it  as  a  fact  of  science.  Many  intelligent  men 
regard  it  as  probable  on  the  side  of  physical  analogy,  and 
of  precisely  that  amount  of  value.  We  think  that  even  if 
specific  variation  by  descent  should  be  proved  to  have  been 
the  method  followed  by  God  in  bringing  into  existence  the 
successive  orders  of  the  lower  animals,  the  immense  proba- 
bility in  the  case  of  man,  looking  upon  the  problem  in  the 
light  of  revelation  and  of  the  intellectual  and  moral  side  of 
man,  is  that  the  preparatory  law  ceased  to  rule  in  this 
supreme  instance  and  that  God's  own  image  was  brought 
into  existence  by  an  immediate  act  of  God  himself.  Cer- 
tainly the  Scriptures,  which  we  devoutly  believe  to  be  the 
very  word  of  God,  render  this  very  plain  in  what  they 
teach  as  to  the  production  of  Eve.  An  evolution  of  the  body 
of  Adam,  since  evolution  signifies  advanced  changes 
through  immeasurably  minute  variations,  could  not  possi- 
bly have  been  effected  in  the  male  line  alone.  He  must 
have  had  a  mother  as  well  as  a  father,  and  he  must  have 
had  sisters  and  female  cousins  as  well.  If  the  theory  of 
evolution  any  man  holds  makes  room  for  the  Bible  account 
of  Eve,  neither  the  scientists,  nor  the  philosophers,  nor  the 
theologians  will  make  room  for  him. 

With  the  best  wishes  for  the  prosperity  of  yourself  and 
of  your  noble  and  beloved  Church,  and  of  all  its  institutions, 
I  remain  yours,  sincerely,  A.  A.  Hodg£. 

P.  S. — To  say  that  God  created  the  body  of  Adam  out  of 
pre-existing  materials  is  to  say  precisely  what  the  Bible 
says.  But  this  is  very  different  from  saying  that  it  was 
produced  by  a  process  of  natural  generation  from  the  bodies 
of  brute  ancestors.  To  say  that  God  formed  a  body  as  a 
new  creation  out  of  pre-existing  matter,  and  then  placed  a 


826 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


newly-created  soul  in  it,  is  one  thing.  But  this  is  very- 
different  from  saying  that  a  brute  generated  a  soulless  body, 
and  then  that  God  put  a  soul  created  in  his  own  image  in  it. 

We  are  glad  to  present  also  the  views  of  Professor  Patton, 
who  is  Professor  Hodge's  colleague  in  Princeton  Seminary. 
We  copy  them  from  an  article  written  by  Professor  Patton 
and  published  in  the  Presbyterian  Review  of  January,  1885 — 
pp.  138,  143,  144: 

"There  are  two  methods  open  to  those  who  defend  Chris- 
tianity against  the  assaults  that  are  made  upon  it  by  anti- 
Christian  thought;  it  may  be  shown  that  the  hypotheses 
which  are  alleged  to  be  contrary  to  the  claims  of  Christian- 
ity are  not  warranted  by  fact;  or,  it  may  be  shown  that 
even  supposing  that  they  were  true,  they  would  not  dis- 
credit revealed  religion.  It  is  evident  that  these  methods 
are  not  mutually  exclusive ;  and  that  when  it  is  possible  to 
employ  it,  there  is  advantage  in  the  latter  method.  The 
Christian  apologete  cannot  be  expected  to  speak  with  the 
exceptional  authority  in  scientific  matters  that  belongs  to 
the  professed  students  of  science ;  and  he  may  very  properly 
confine  his  apologetic  method,  if  he  choose,  to  the  more 
humble  function  of  pleading  by  way  of  demurrer  to  the 
charges  that  are  brought  against  Christianity.  .  .  . 

As  we  have  already  said,  it  does  not  follow  that  evolution 
accounts  for  man  because  it  accounts  for  the  species  of 
animals  inferior  to  man.  There  are  not  a  few  Christian 
men  who  accept  the  doctrine  of  common  descent  as  to  the 
origin  of  species,  who  hold  that  man  was  a  special  creation, 
and  that  the  words  of  Genesis  contain  a  plain,  historical 
account  of  his  origin.  At  the  same  time  we  arc  obliged  to 
face  the  question  whether  the  doctrine  of  evolution  applied 
to  man  is  capable  of  being  reconciled  with  the  Bible. 

Were  evolution  an  accepted  fact,  the  picture  presented  to 
our  view  in  the  organic  world  would  be  a  rising  scale  of 
physical  and  psychical  development,  culminating  in  reason- 
ing, praying  Man.  The  correspondence  between  this  pic- 
ture and  that  presented  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  is  too 
close  to  be  accounted  for  upon  any  other  hypothesis  than 
Inspiration.  We  have  no  fear  that  any  theory  of  evolution 
can  do  aught  but  enhance  the  evidence  for  the  supernatu- 
ral origin  of  the  Bible. 

It  is  conceivable  that  there  has  been  a  chain  of  many 
links  connecting  the  intelligence  of  man  with  the  lowest 
orders  of  intelligence  in  the  animal  world.  It  would  be 
one  thing,  however,  to  admit  this  as  a  fact,  and  another  to 
have  a  metaphysical  explanation  of  the  fact.   Some  undoubt- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


827 


edly  would  use  this  fact  to  support  a  materialistic  philoso- 
phy that  denies  the  separate  existence  of  the  soul,  and  all 
intuitionalism.  Others  would  impose  a  Pantheistic  inter- 
pretation upon  the  phenomena  of  rising  intelligences.  The 
Theist  and  the  Christian  would  regard  man  (and,  perhaps, 
all  intelligences)  as  a  direct  creation  of  God.  The  apologete 
owes  it  to  Christianity  to  say  that,  though  facts  were  to 
force  him  to  believe  in  an  uninterrupted  line  of  psychical 
development,  they  could  never  force  him  to  accept  material- 
istic or  pantheistic  metaphysics. 

Mind-wise  man  is  related  to  God ;  body-wise  man  is  made 
of  the  dust  of  the  ground.  This  is  the  plain  teaching  of  the 
Bible,  and  though  evolution  were  true,  it  would  not  con- 
flict, but,  on  the  contrary,  be  in  fullest  harmony  with  this 
statement.  What  the  process  was  by  which  man  was  made 
we  do  not  know:  but  if  it  could  be  shown  that  man  is 
related  to  the  inferior  animals,  so  far  as  his  body  is  con- 
cerned, it  would  be  none  the  less  true  that  God  made  him 
out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground.  Still  it  is  hard  to  see  how  the 
facts  of  Scripture  regarding  the  creation  of  woman,  the 
descent  of  the  human  family  from  a  single  pair,  the  original 
righteousness  of  our  first  parents,  their  fall  and  that  of  their 
posterity  through  a  single  act  of  disobedience,  and  the  sub- 
sequent provisions  of  the  economy  of  grace  in  which  Adam's 
representative  character  is  presupposed,  can  be  accounted 
for  except  by  believing  in  the  special  creation  of  Adam  and 
Eve ;  it  would  be  going  farther,  perhaps,  than  we  have  any 
right  to  go,  to  say  that  these  facts  never  can  be  harmonised 
with  evolution:  we  do  not  see  how  they  can.  And  we  see 
no  reason  for  going  in  quest  of  any  theory  that  will  effect 
this  reconciliation,  inasmuch  as  there  is  not  the  slightest 
evidence  that  contravenes  the  doctrine  that  man  was  an 
immediate  creation  of  God. 

The  doctrine  of  evolution  is  claimed  by  its  advocates  to 
be  a  scientific  doctrine  resting  upon  undeniable  facts  of 
observation.  It  is  very  commonly  supposed  that  the  oppo- 
sition to  Christianity  made  by  evolutionists  is  an  opposition 
of  science.  We  have  tried  to  show  that  it  is  not  evolution 
in  its  scientific  aspect  so  much,  but  rather  the  metaphysical 
complement  of  evolution,  that  is  especially  hostile  to  the 
gospel.  Some  of  the  most  conspicuous  defenders  of  evolu- 
tion hold  a  materialistic  or  pantheistic  metaphysics,  and 
those  who  know  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  only  as  it  is 
expounded  by  these  anti-theistic  thinkers  are  very  apt  to 
suppose  that  a  theory  of  evolution  that  is  at  once  theistic 
and  Christian  is  impossible.  For  the  sake  of  truth,  as  well 
as  for  the  sake  of  those  who  may  be  brought  under  unjust 


828 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


suspicion  because  of  their  known  sympathy  with  some 
phases  of  the  evolution  hypothesis,  this  mistake  ought  to  be 
corrected.  .  .  — April  29. 

Drs.  Patton  and  Hodge:  on  Evolution  and  the  Scriptures. 

Before  we  speak  of  Dr.  Patton's  article  from  which  we 
published  extracts  last  week,  we  wish  to  add  a  few  words 
respecting  Dr.  Hodge's  views. 

In  a  letter  republished  in  the  Central  Presbyterian  of  April 
14,  Dr.  Hodge,  apparently  speaking  for  Drs.  McCosh  and 
Patton  as  well  as  himself,  says : 

"About  the  lower  animals,  we  are  willing  to  leave  it  to  the 
scientists  as  outside  of  immediate  theological  or  religious 
interest." 

That  is,  the  question  whether  the  lower  animals  were  pro- 
duced by  evolution  or  by  immediate  creation  out  of  the 
ground  is  "outside  of  immediate  theological  and  religious 
interest."  And  yet  the  Bible  says,  Gen.  2:19,  that  it  was 
"out  of  the  ground"  that  "the  Lord  God  formed"  them. 

The  above  statement,  along  with  Dr.  Hodge's  views  as 
published  last  week,  may  be  compared  with  Professor 
Woodrow's  utterances:  "You  will  soon  see  my  heresies, 
the  only  point  of  importance  in  which  is,  what  I  have  been 
teaching  for  many  years,  namely,  that  God's  word  does  not 
teach  us  how  he  created  the  various  forms  of  organised 
beings,  whether  mediately  or  immediately;  and  if  so,  it 
makes  no  difference  to  us  whether  evolution  is  true  or  not." 
(So.  Pres.  Review,  Vol.  36,  p.  447.)  "In  the  Bible  I  find 
nothing  that  contradicts  the  belief  that  God  immediately 
brought  into  existence  each  form  independently;  or  that 
contradicts  the  contrary  belief  that,  having  originated  one 
or  a  few  forms,  he  caused  all  the  others  to  spring  from 
these  in  accordance  with  laws  which  he  ordained  and  makes 
operative."  (Address,  p.  14.)  "It  is  evident  that  there 
can  be  no  intention  to  describe  the  material  employed." 
Vb.,  p.  17.) 

In  his  letter  published  last  week  Dr.  Hodge  says : 
"We  think  that  even  if  specific  variation  with  descent 
should  be  proved  to  have  been  the  method  followed  by  God 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


829 


in  bringing  into  existence  the  successive  orders  of  the 
lower  animals,  the  immense  probability  in  the  case  of  man, 
looking  upon  the  problem  in  the  light  of  revelation  and  of 
the  intellectual  and  moral  side  of  man,  is  that  the  prepara- 
tory law  ceased  to  rule  in  this  supreme  instance  and  that 
God's  image  was  brought  into  existence  by  an  immediate 
act  of  God  himself." 

With  this  compare  Professor  Woodrow's  remarks : 
"As  regards  the  soul  of  man,  which  bears  God's  image, 
and  which  differs  so  entirely  not  merely  in  degree  but  in 
kind  from  anything  in  the  animals,  I  believe  that  it  was 
immediately  created,  that  we  are  here  so  taught ;  and  I 
have  not  found  in  science  any  reason  to  believe  otherwise. 
Just  as  there  is  no  scientific  basis  for  the  belief  that  the 
doctrine  of  derivation  or  descent  can  bridge  over  the  chasms 
which  separate  the  non-existent  from  the  existent,  and  the 
inorganic  from  the  organic,  so  there  is  no  such  basis  for  the 
belief  that  this  doctrine  can  bridge  over  the  chasm  which 
separates  the  mere  animal  from  the  exalted  being  which  is 
made  after  the  image  of  God.  The  mineral  differs  from  the 
animal  in  kind,  not  merely  in  degree ;  so  the  animal  differs 
from  man  in  kind ;  and  while  science  has  traced  numberless 
transitions  from  degree  to  degree,  it  has  utterly  failed  to 
find  any  indications  of  transition  from  kind  to  kind  in  this 
sense."    (Address,  pp.  17,  18). 

Referring  now  to  Dr.  Patton's  article,  we  may  state  that 
the  method  of  defending  Christianity  in  which  he  says 
"there  is  advantage"  "when  it  is  possible  to  employ  it,"  is 
the  method  almost  invariably  employed  by  Professor 
Woodrow  for  the  last  twenty-five  years.  He  had  even  in 
his  youth  seen  too  much  of  the  terribly  disastrous  results 
produced  by  proving  the  so-called  "harmonies"  between 
revelation  and  science  to  be  willing  to  add  to  their  number. 
And  he  thinks  he  has  succeeded  in  showing,  in  reference  to 
by  far  the  greater  number  of  assaults  upon  the  Scriptures 
in  the  name  of  science,  that,  admitting  the  alleged  facts  and 
principles  to  be  true  as  claimed,  they  do  not  throw  the 
shadow  of  doubt  on  the  Scriptures  rightly  interpreted. 


830 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Dr.  Patton  points  out  with  clearness  and  accuracy  the 
immense  difference  between  "evolution  in  its  scientific 
aspect"  and  the  "metaphysical  complement  of  evolution," 
as  he  terms  it.  If  this  difference  had  been  perceived,  it 
would  certainly  have  prevented  many  very  serious  misap- 
prehensions. On  pages  9,  10,  and  11  of  his  Address,  Pro- 
fessor Woodrow  attempted  to  point  out  this  distinction; 
but  to  no  purpose,  so  far  as  many  of  his  assailants  are 
concerned.  As  Dr.  Patton  well  says,  "This  mistake  [of  con- 
founding things  so  entirely  different]  ought  to  be  corrected," 

Dr.  Patton  says: 

"Mind-wise  man  is  related  to  God ;  body-wise  man  is 
made  of  the  dust  of  the  ground.  This  is  the  plain  teaching 
of  the  Bible,  and  though  evolution  were  true,  it  would  not 
conflict,  but,  on  the  contrary,  be  in  fullest  harmony  with 
this  statement.  What  the  process  was  by  which  man  was 
made  we  do  not  know;  but  if  it  could  be  shown  that  man 
is  related  to  the  inferior  animals,  so  far  as  his  body  is  con- 
cerned, it  would  be  none  the  less  true  that  God  made  him 
out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground." 

In  these  sentences  he  expresses  exactly  what  Professor 
Woodrow  has  been  teaching.  If  what  he  here  asserts  is 
true,  it  becomes  a  matter  of  supreme  indifference  to  the 
Bible  believer  whether  evolution  is  true  or  false.  And  this 
is  precisely  what  Professor  Woodrow  maintains. 

Dr.  Patton  follows  these  statements  with  a  list  of  diffi- 
culties which  would  keep  him  from  rejecting  the  doctrine 
of  the  "special  creation  of  Adam  and  Eve."  Here  also  we 
fully  agree  with  him,  if  we  understand  him.  Eve  we  think 
the  Bible  teaches  to  have  been  a  special  creation  in  every 
sense — both  "mind-wise"  and  "body-wise,"  as  Dr.  Patton 
expresses  it.  So  was  Adam,  so  far  as  he  was  man  in  the 
image  of  God  and  the  federal  head  of  our  race.  So  far  the 
Bible  seems  to  us  to  be  clear.  And  however  and  of  what- 
ever material  it  pleased  God  to  form  a  body  for  Adam,  his 
creation  was  not  the  less  special  under  one  supposition 
than  under  another.  We  can  hardly  suppose  that  Dr.  Pat- 
ton's  difficulties  hinge  upon  the  question  of  the  kind  of 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


831 


matter  and  the  method  by  which  God  prepared  Adam's 
body. 

We  may  say,  however,  that  if  "the  descent  of  the  human 
family  from  a  single  pair,  the  original  righteousness  of  our 
first  parents,  their  fall  and  that  of  their  posterity  through 
a  single  act  of  disobedience,  and  the  subsequent  provisions 
(of  the  economy  of  grace  in  which  Adam's  representative 
character  is  presupposed" — if  one  of  these  doctrines  should 
be  found  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  belief  "that  man  is 
related  to  the  inferior  animals,  so  far  as  his  body  is  con- 
cerned," we  would  regard  this  belief  as  thereby  proved 
to  be  untenable.  These  doctrines  we  believe  to  be  taught  in 
God's  word  and  therefore  certainly  true ;  and  hence  anything 
inconsistent  with  them  is  necessarily  false.  But  we  may 
add,  quoting  Dr.  Patton's  language  with  a  slight  change 
or  two :  "It  would  be  going  farther,  perhaps,  than  we  have 
any  right  to  go,  to  say  that  these"  doctrines  never  can  be 
shown  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  possible  evolution  of 
Adam's  body:  "we  do  not  see  how  they  can."  But,  we 
repeat,  if  they  can,  this  belief  must  be  abandoned. 

If  the  question  should  now  be  asked,  Do  these  Princeton 
Professors  favor  evolution?  it  is  evident  from  all  that  has 
been  said  that  it  must  be  answered  with  an  emphatic  nega- 
tive; they  are  very  decided  anti-evolutionists — they  seem 
to  reject  evolution  in  all  its  forms.  But  this  is  a  question 
in  which  theologians  and  biblical  interpreters  as  such  have 
no  interest ;  the  only  question  these  care  for  is,  How  do  they 
think  that  evolution  stands  related  to  the  Bible?  To  this 
the  answers  are  given,  As  to  the  lower  animals,  we  do  not 
care  anything  about  it ;  it  is  "outside  of  immediate  theologi- 
cal or  religious  interest."  As  to  man's  body,  all  the  Bible 
says  is  that  God  made  it  of  preexisting  materials  without 
specifying  what  these  were  or  what  was  the  method  by 
which  he  made  it;  and  "if  it  could  be  shown  that  man  is 
related  to  the  inferior  animals,  so  far  as  his  body  is  con- 
cerned, it  would  be  none  the  less  true  that  God  made  him 
out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground."  Hence  the  whole  subject  is 
destitute  of  interest  to  the  Bible-believer  as  such.  And 
.since  this  is  the  case,  it  is  a  matter  of  utter  indifference, 


832 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


so  far  as  the  Bible  is  concerned,  what  you  believe  touching 
the  question. 

So  far  as  we  can  see,  we  have  now  fully  and  fairly  repre- 
sented the  views  of  these  distinguished  Professors.  If  we 
have  failed  to  do  so,  if  we  have  in  any  respect  misappre- 
hended their  meaning,  we  will  at  once  make  all  needed  cor- 
rections as  soon  as  they  shall  have  informed  us  wherein 
we  have  erred. 

Of  course  such  questions  as  those  we  have  been  consid- 
ering are  not  to  be  settled  by  authority ;  but  yet  we  are  glad 
that  we  have  had  the  opportunity  of  laying  before  our 
readers  the  views  and  opinions  of  two  teachers  so  justly 
honored  as  Professors  Hodge  and  Patton. — May  6. 


Sir  Wiujam  Dawson  on  the  Relations  of  Evolution  to 

the;  Bibix 

We  cannot  too  often  repeat  that  it  is  only  as  to  the 
relation  of  evolution  to  the  Bible  that  the  Christian  believer 
as  such  can  feel  any  interest  in  the  subject.  If  evolution  in 
any  of  its  aspects  is  found  to  be  inconsistent  with  the 
Bible,  it  is  thereby  proved  to  be  false,  and  ought  to  be 
rejected  without  further  consideration.  But  if  found  not  to 
contradict  the  Bible,  then  the  believer  becomes  indifferent 
to  the  whole  matter — he  does  not  care  whether  it  is  true  or 
false :  in  either  case  it  does  not  affect  that  which  to  him  is 
the  most  absolutely  proved  and  the  most  precious  truth. 

Christians  who  are  inclined  to  believe  in  the  truth  of 
evolution  might  be  supposed  naturally  to  wish  to  find  that 
their  views  are  not  inconsistent  with  the  Bible,  and  there- 
fore the  same  weight  would  not  be  attached  to  their  opin- 
ions on  the  point  as  to  the  opinions  of  those  who  are 
unbelievers  or  disbelievers  in  evolution.  Therefore  in  order 
to  show  how  the  matter  is  regarded  by  opponents  of  evolu- 
tion of  unquestioned  orthodoxy,  last  week  and  the  week 
before  we  published  the  opinions  of  Professors  Hodge  and 
Patton  of  Princeton  Theological  Seminary.  For  the  same 
reason  we  publish  to-day  the  views  of  Sir  William  Dawson. 
Our  readers  hardly  need  to  be  informed  that  Principal 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


833 


Dawson  is  regarded  as  the  most  formidable  scientific  oppo- 
nent of  evolution,  and  many  of  our  friends  on  the  other 
side  seem  to  be  in  the  habit  of  regarding  his  authority  as 
outweighing  that  of  all  other  prominent  men  of  science  put 
together.  He  certainly  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  witness 
prejudiced  in  favor  of  evolution.  In  the  Homiletic  Review 
for  this  month,  he  has  an  article  on  "The  Present  Status  of 
the  Darwinian  Theory  of  Evolution,"  in  which  he  shows 
that  he  is  still  a  decided  anti-evolutionist;  but  at  the  same 
time  he  gives  his  opinions  very  frankly  on  the  relations 
of  evolution  to  religion  and  the  Bible.  He  says,  "The 
question  of  how  species  may  have  been  introduced  by  the 
will  of  a  Creator  is  not  one  likely  to  be  soon,  if  ever, 
definitely  settled  by  science,  while  in  the  Bible  it  is  left  in  a 
form  which  does  not  commit  us  either  to  the  extent  of 
species  or  to  any  special  doctrine  with  respect  to  the 
precise  way  in  which  it  pleased  God  to  make  them."  "While 
the  Bible  does  not  commit  itself  to  any  hypotheses  of  evolu- 
tion, it  does  not  exclude  these  up  to  a  certain  point."  We 
present  the  following  extracts  from  his  article  as  setting 
forth  his  latest  views : 

"I  have  looked  at  these  matters  solely  on  the  side  of 
natural  science,  and  without  reference  to  their  possible 
bearing  on  theology.  On  this,  I  think,  no  apprehension 
need  be  entertained.  The  mere  metaphysical  agnosticism  of 
Herbert  Spencer  is  likely  to  be  as  ephemeral  as  other  forms 
of  atheistic  philosophy  which  have  preceded  it,  and  is 
already  losing  its  hold,  and  the  question  of  how  species  may 
have  been  introduced  by  the  will  of  a  Creator,  is  one  not 
likely  to  be  soon,  if  ever,  definitely  settled  by  science,  while 
in  the  Bible  it  is  left  in  a  form  which  does  not  commit  us 
either  to  the  extent  of  species  or  to  any  special  doctrine 
with  respect  to  the  precise  way  in  which  it  pleased  God  to 
make  them.  On  this  subject,  I  cannot  do  better  than  quote 
from  a  recent  work  of  my  own.  'When  we  look  at  the 
details  of  the  narrative  of  creation  we  are  struck  with  the 
manner  in  which  the  Bible  includes  in  a  few  simple  words 
all  the  leading  causes  and  conditions  which  science  has 
been  able  to  discover!  .... 


53— w 


834 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


"  'Let  it  be  further  observed  that  creation  or  making,  as 
thus  stated  in  the  Bible,  is  not  of  the  nature  of  what  some 
are  pleased  to  call  an  arbitrary  intervention  and  miraculous 
interference  with  the  course  of  nature.  It  leaves  quite  open 
the  inquiry  how  much  of  the  vital  phenomena  which  we 
perceive  may  be  due  to  the  absolute  creative  fiat,  to  the 
prepared  environment,  or  the  reproductive  power.  The 
creative  work  is  itself  a  part  of  Divine  law,  and  this  in  a 
threefold  aspect:  First,  the  law  of  the  Divine  will  or  pur- 
pose ;  second,  the  laws  impressed  on  the  medium  or  environ- 
ment ;  third,  the  laws  of  the  organism  itself,  and  of  its  con- 
tinuous multiplication,  either  with  or  without  modifications. 

"  'While  the  Bible  does  not  commit  itself  to  any  hypothe- 
ses of  evolution,  it  does  not  exclude  these  up  to  a  certain 
point.  It  even  intimates  in  the  varying  formulae,  "created," 
"made/'  "formed,"  caused  to  "bring  forth,"  that  different 
kinds  of  living  beings  may  have  been  introduced  in  different 
ways,  only  one  of  which  is  entitled  to  be  designated  by  the 
higher  term  "create."  .... 

"  'If  the  chemist  has  to  recognise  say  sixty  substances  as 
elementary,  these  are  to  him  manufactured  articles,  products 
of  creation.  If  he  should  be  able  to  reduce  them  to  a  much 
smaller  number,  even  ultimately  to  only  one  kind  of  matter, 
he  would  not  by  such  discovery  be  enabled  to  dispense  with 
a  Creator,  but  would  only  have  penetrated  a  little  more 
deeply  into  his  methods  of  procedure.  The  biological  ques- 
tion is,  no  doubt,  much  more  intricate  and  difficult  than  the 
chemical,  but  is  of  the  same  general  character.  On  the  prin- 
ciples of  Biblical  theism,  it  may  be  stated  in  this  way:  God 
has  created  all  living  beings  according  to  their  kinds  or 
species,  but  with  capacities  for  variation  and  change  under 
the  laws  which  he  has  enacted  for  them.  Can  we  ascertain 
any  of  the  methods  of  such  creation  or  making,  and  can  we 
know  how  many  of  the  forms  which  we  have  been  in  the 
habit  of  naming  as  distinct  species  coincide  with  his  creative 
species,  and  how  many  are  really  results  of  their  variations 
under  the  laws  of  reproduction  and  heredity,  and  the  influ- 
ence of  their  surroundings?' 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


835 


"I  may  add  that  this  paper  is  necessarily  a  very  general 
summary  of  the  questions  to  which  it  relates,  and  that  its 
positions  might  be  much  strengthened  by  a  detailed  refer- 
ence to  those  marvellous  structures  and  functions  of  animals 
and  plants  which  modern  science  has  revealed  to  us  and  to 
their  wonderful  history  in  geological  time.  These  are  facts 
so  stupendous  in  their  intricacy  and  vastness  that  they 
make  the  relation  of  God  to  the  origination  and  history  of 
any  humble  animal  or  plant  as  grand  and  inscrutable  as  his 
relation  to  the  construction  of  the  starry  universe  itself.'" — 
May  13. 


Changes  in  Biblical  Interpretation. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  James  Stacy.,  in  his  recently  published  book 
on  the  "Day  of  Rest,"  has  some  admirable  remarks  on  the 
truth  ''that  the  word  of  God  alone,  and  not  the  opinion  of 
uninspired  men,  is  the  foundation  for  Christian  belief  and 
practice."  He  points  out  the  important  fact  that  each  age  is 
or  at  least  ought  to  be  better  able  rightly  to  interpret  the 
Scriptures  than  its  predecessor.  But  there  is  so  much  that 
is  excellent  that  we  must  take  the  liberty  of  laying  before 
our  readers  several  pages  from  his  chapter  on  the  "Position 
of  the  Reformers,"  pp.  199.  200,  201.  The  exact  applicability 
of  what  he  says  to  some  of  the  subjects  now  undergoing 
earnest  discussion  in  the  Church,  cannot  fail  to  be  observed. 
We  trust  not  only  that  the  applicability  will  be  seen,  but 
that  the  application  will  be  made. 

Dr.  Stacy  says : 

In  this  connexion  we  may  consider  the  charge,  so  often 
alleged  against  the  common  orthodox  view,  that  Luther  and 
Calvin,  and  the  Reformers  generally,  regarded  the  day  abro- 
gated. Suppose,  for  a  moment,  that  they  did,  could  they  not 
have  erred,  as  others  have  done?  The  day  of  inspiration 
has  long  since  passed.  Though  we  may  greatly  honor  those 
men  and  their  worthy  co-associates,  for  their  clear  and  bold 
utterances  of  truth  in  the  main,  yet  no  one,  we  presume,  is 
willing  to  ascribe  to  them  anything  like  infallibility.  Luther, 
the  great  reformer,  held  that  the  Epistle  of  James  was 
"chaffy,"  because  he  failed  to  see  how  James's  utterance 


836 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


that  a  man  was  "justified  by  works,"  could  be  reconciled 
with  that  of  Paul  that  a  man  was  "justified  by  faith."  So 
Calvin  might  have  caught  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  in  other 
things,  but  not  in  this  matter  of  the  Sabbath.  The  truth 
cannot  be  too  often  sounded  in  the  ears  of  the  world,  that 
the  word  of  God  alone,  and  not  the  opinion  of  uninspired 
men,  is  the  foundation  for  Christian  belief  and  practice. 
And  we  have  that  word,  and  can  judge  of  it,  just  as  well 
as  those  who  have  preceded  us,  and  even  better,  as  our 
opportunities  for  its  study  are  superior.  For,  in  addition  to 
our  increased  facilities,  there  is  such  a  thing  as  a  continued 
development  in  the  application  of  the  truth,  as  Trench,  in 
his  Hulsean  Lectures,  has  so  forcibly  shown.  To  say  that 
the  Reformers,  or  even  early  fathers,  knew  all,  or,  in  other 
words,  had  attained  perfection  in  knowledge  and  practice, 
is  to  put  a  complete  estoppel  upon  all  future  development 
in  the  life  and  power  of  the  Church — a  position  overwhelm- 
ingly refuted  by  the  whole  analogy  of  nature  as  well  as  the 
teaching  of  the  Scriptures  themselves.  The  Bible  is  a  grow- 
ing book,  and  will  be  better  understood  as  the  years  go  by. 
This  will  appear  when  we  remember  that  its  truths  were 
intended  to  be  applicable  to  all  nations,  generations, 
tongues,  and  tribes.  As  there  is  a  great  deal  in  the  resources 
of  the  earth  yet  undeveloped,  so  in  this  mine  of  God's  word. 
There  is  a  great  deal  in  that  word  yet  unexplored,  being 
wholly  applicable  to  states  of  things  yet  in  the  distant 
future,  and  of  which  we  can  now  form  no  adequate  concep- 
tion, and  which  states  of  things  will  be  necessary  to  a  clear 
understanding  of  the  truths  themselves.  In  other  words, 
the  truth  will  grow  upon  the  world  in  its  applicability,  its 
richness,  its  grandeur.  The  divine  page  will  only  become 
the  more  illumined  by  the  advance  of  time,  and  men  will 
see  and  feel  more  of  its  spirit,  its  beauty,  its  power.  The 
disciples  themselves  had  very  crude  notions  concerning 
many  subjects,  though  the  Master  was  present  with  them  to 
teach  and  instruct,  and  did  not  understand  many  things  he 
taught  until  afterwards.  So  now  there  are  still  many  things 
in  the  Scriptures  which  will  be  better  understood  by  those 
who  are  to  come  after  us  


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


837 


In  this  particular,  the  history  of  the  Church  is  like  that  of 
the  world.  Different  leading  truths  are  brought  to  the  front 
by  different  generations.  The  current  of  human  thought, 
like  the  waves  of  the  sea,  for  the  time  is  all  in  one  direction. 
As  different  truths  rise  to  the  surface  they  arc  more  care- 
fully studied,  and  become  more  emphatically  pronounced 
and  emphasised.  The  past  history  of  the  Church  clearly 
shows  this.  The  divinity  of  Christ,  the  personality  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  the  power  of  the  magistrate,  the  freedom  of 
the  will,  and  the  question  of  baptism,  have  each  in  its  turn 
been  the  leading  emphasised  thought  of  the  age,  the  whole 
theology  of  the  time  being  made  to  conform  to  those  lead- 
ing truths.  Insomuch  that  the  knowledge  of  the  theology 
of  any  age  is  absolutely  necessary  to  a  knowledge  of  the 
history  of  that  age. 


From  the  Charleston  News  and  Courier. 
The:  Origin  of  Adam's  Body. 

Dr.  Woodrow  sets  himself  right  on  the  evolution 
question, 

He  holds  that  every  word  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  is  abso- 
lutely true,  and  the  Christian  may  hold  whatever  scientific 
views  he  please  so  long  as  they  do  not  contradict  the  word  of 
God. 

'    Columbia,  S.  C,  June  3,  1886. 
To  the  Editor  of  the  News  and  Courier: 

I  observe  in  your  journal  for  May  25  an  account  of  the 
proceedings  of  the  Presbyterian  General  Assembly  at 
Augusta,  Ga.,  in  which  there  is  what  purports  to  be  a 
synopsis  of  some  remarks  made  by  me.  Allow  me  to  say 
that  this  synopsis  is  inaccurate  in  every  particular.  It  would 
be  impossible  to  obtain  from  it  the  least  idea  of  what  I 
really  said. 

But  I  write  chiefly  to  ask  you  to  allow  me  to  make  another 
correction.  In  the  News  and  Courier  for  May  30,  your 
special  correspondent,  "C.  E.  C,"  speaking  of  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Palmer's  address,  says : 


838 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


"The  third  point  was  the  duty  of  the  Church  to  maintain 
the  purity  of  the  Scriptures  against  any  and  all  attempts  to 
change  the  historic  interpretation  in  attempting  to  make 
them  teach  what  the  Spirit  evidently  never  meant  them  to 
teach.  The  application  of  this  point  to  the  present  attempt 
to  make  the  Scriptures  teach  evolution  is  easy,  though  no 
direct  reference  was  made  to  this  subject  in  the  address." 

It  is  not  here  said  that  /  have  made  the  attempt  in  ques- 
tion— there  is  "no  direct  reference"  to  me,  but  the  "appli- 
cation" of  your  correspondent's  words  "is  easy."  Let  me 
say,  then,  that  the  statement  that  there  is  a  "present  attempt 
to  make  the  Scriptures  teach  evolution,"  is,  so  far  as  I  know, 
wholly  without  foundation.  If  there  ever  has  been  such  an 
attempt,  within  the  limits  of  the  Southern  Presbyterian 
Church,  I  at  least  have  never  heard  of  it.  Doubtless  "C.  E. 
C.,"*  (presumably  a  Presbyterian  minister,)  and  the  over- 
whelming majority  of  the  members  of  the  Augusta  General 
Assembly,  believe  that  the  attempt  has  been  made  and  that 
I  have  made  it ;  but  nothing  could  be  further  from  the  truth. 
I  have  reiterated  over  and  over  again  in  every  form  my 
belief  that  the  Scriptures  do  not  teach  God's  mode  of  crea- 
tion; that  they  teach  the  fact,  but  not  the  method;  and, 
therefore,  that  neither  the  hypothesis  of  immediate  creation 
nor  the  hypothesis  of  creation  by  evolution  can  contradict 
the  Scriptures ;  that  "every  word  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  is 
absolutely  true,  but  that  to  the  Christian  believer  it  is 
immaterial  what  scientific  views  he  may  hold,  provided  such 
views  do  not  contradict  the  Sacred  Scriptures." 

I  cannot  comprehend  the  prevailing  inability  to  distin- 
guish these  propositions  from  that  which  asserts  that  the 
"Scriptures  teach  evolution."  But  the  inability  exists;  and 
I  have  come  almost  to  despair  of  seeing  it  removed.  Yet  I 
am  unwilling  to  be  held  up  in  a  false  light  before  your  wide 
circle  of  intelligent  readers,  and  therefore  I  beg  that  you  will 
publish  what  I  have  now  written.  James  Woodrow. 

*  Since  writing  the  above,  I  have  seen  that  the  words  here  quoted  also 
form  part  of  a  communication  from  the  Rev.  C.  E.  Chichester  to  the 
Independent,  published  in  that  journal  June  3rd.  Hence,  Mr.  Chichester, 
of  Charleston,  S.  C,  is  responsible  for  the  misapprehension  here  corrected 
and  for  its  wide  publication. — J.  W. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


839 


Condemned  and  Sentenced  May  29. 
To  be  Tried  August  15. 

As  may  be  seen  in  the  reports  of  the  General  Assembly's 
proceedings  published  to-day,  Professor  Woodrow  was  con- 
demned and  sentenced  last  Saturday  without  trial.  His  trial 
for  the  offences  of  which  he  has  been  declared  guilty  and 
for  which  he  has  been  sentenced  will  be  held  next  August. 

[The  following  resolutions  were  adopted  by  the  General 
Assembly  at  its  meeting  in  Augusta.  Ga.,  to  which  refer- 
ence is  made  above : 

"The  Church  remains  at  this  time  sincerely  convinced 
that  the  Scriptures,  as  truly  and  authoritatively  expounded 
in  our  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms,  teach  that 
Adam  and  Eve  were  created,  body  and  soul,  by  immediate 
acts  of  Almighty  Power,  thereby  preserving  a  perfect  race 
unity. 

"That  Adam's  body  was  directly  fashioned  by  Almighty 
God,  without  any  natural  animal  parentage  of  any  kind,  out 
of  matter  previously  created  of  nothing. 

"And  that  any  doctrine  at  variance  therewith  is  a  danger- 
ous error,  inasmuch  as  by  the  methods  of  interpreting  Script- 
ure it  must  demand,  and  in  the  consequences  which  by  fair 
implication  it  will  involve,  it  will  lead  to  the  denial  of  doc- 
trines fundamental  to  the  faith." 

"Resolved,  That  whereas  the  General  Assembly  is  con- 
vinced that  Rev.  James  Woodrow,  D.  D.,  one  of  the  Profes- 
sors in  Columbia  Theological  Seminary,  holds  views  repug- 
nant to  the  word  of  God  and  to  our  Confession  of  Faith, 
as  appears  both  by  his  Address  published  in  the  Southern 
Presbyterian  Review  for  July,  1884,  and  in  other  publications, 
and  by  his  statements  made  upon  the  floor  oJ  this  Assembly. 

"Therefore,  this  General  Assembly  does  hereby,  in 
accordance  with  its  action  yesterday  in  regard  to  the  over- 
sight of  Theological  Seminaries,  earnestly  recommend  to 
the  Synods  of  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  and  of 
South  Georgia  and  Florida,  which  direct  and  control  the 
said  Seminary,  to  dismiss  the  said  Rev.  James  Woodrow, 
D.  D.,  as  professor  in  the  said  Seminary,  and  to  appoint 


840 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


another  in  his  place,  and  speedily  to  take  such  other  steps  as 
in  their  judgment  will  be  best  adapted  to  restore  this  Semin- 
ary to  the  confidence  of  the  Church."] — June  J. 


Not  Guii/ty. 

The  Presbytery  of  Augusta  met  at  Bethany  church,  near 
Union  Point,  Ga.,  last  Thursday.  The  long-looked-for  trial 
of  Prof.  James  Woodrow  on  the  charge  of  heresy  began  on 
Monday,  and  on  Tuesday  evening  [Aug.  17,  1886]  a  verdict 
of  NOT  GUILTY  was  rendered.  Rev.  Dr.  Adams,  of 
Augusta,  was  prosecutor,  and  Dr.  Woodrow  conducted  his 
own  defence.  The  only  witness  examined  on  the  part  of  the 
prosecution  was  Rev.  Dr.  J.  L.  Girardeau.  The  only  wit- 
ness examined  for  the  defence  was  the  prosecutor,  Dr. 
Adams. 

The  occasion  was  also  memorable  on  account  of  the  cele- 
bration of  the  centennial  of  Bethany  church.  Thousands  of 
people  were  present,  and  the  exercises  were  peculiarly  inter- 
esting. 

We  will  give  a  full  report  of  the  trial  and  other  pro- 
ceedings next  week. — Aug.  19. 


To  What  Do  We  Object? 

Asks  the  St.  Louis  Presbyterian,  and  continues: 
Not  to  the  Augusta  Assembly's  interpretation  of  the 
Scripture  account  of  the  creation  of  man.  We  are  an  old- 
fashioned  reader  of  the  Bible,  and  subscribe  heartily  to  the 
Assembly's  deliverance  "that  Adam  and  Eve  were  created, 
body  and  soul,  by  immediate  acts  of  Almighty  power,  and 
that  Adam's  body  was  directly  fashioned  by  Almighty 
God,  without  any  natural  animal  parentage  of  any  kind,  out 
of  matter  previously  created  from  nothing."  Stick  a  pin 
there.  We  do  not  believe  in  Dr.  Hodge's  "organic  dust,"  or 
Dr.  Armstrong's  "mould,"  or  Dr.  Woodrow's  "modifica- 
tion of  an  animal  frame  into  a  human  frame,"  or  the  Central 
Presbyterian's  "harmless  and  admissible  view"  that  "God 
created  Adam  by  a  miraculous  process  instantaneously  out 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


841 


of  pre-existing  organic  matter."  We  believe  with  Isaac 
Watts,  that  God 

"Formed  us  of  clay  and  made  us  men." 

"And  the  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground."  This  is  all  the  Bible  says  about  it.  We  believe 
it  was  common,  literal  dust.  Dr.  Hodge  says  that  this  is 
"childish,"  and  that  the  dust  must  have  been  "organic," 
because  Science  tells  him  that  man's  body  cannot  be  made 
out  of  common  dust.  Dr.  Armstrong  calls  the  material 
"mould,"  because  Science  tells  him  just  what  it  told  Dr. 
Hodge.  And  the  Central  Presbyterian,  which  is  also  learned 
in  Science,  sees  no  harm  in  the  view  that  God  created  man 
"by  a  miraculous  process  instantaneously  out  of  pre-exist- 
ing organic  matter."  Then,  Dr.  Woodrow  comes  along  with 
his  Science.  He  is  more  explicit  than  Drs.  Hodge  and  Arm- 
strong and  the  Central  Presbyterian,  and  says  "it  is  probably 
true"  that  God  created  man  miraculously  and  instantane- 
ously out  of  pre-existing  organic  matter  in  the  shape  of 
some  animal  which  "the  Almighty  modified  into  proper 
shape  and  form  to  become  the  body  of  Adam,  but  which  was 
not  Adam's  body  until  the  Creator  made  it  a  human  frame, 
nor  until  he  breathed  into  it  an  immortal  human  spirit." 

Now,  it  will  be  observed  (i)  that  all  these  gentlemen 
believe  in  "organic"  dust;  (2)  that  some  of  them  seem  to 
believe  that  it  was  dead  dust  yet  having  in  it  "organic"  ele- 
ments, while  Dr.  Woodrow  inclines  to  the  belief  that  it  was 
living  dust — dust  incorporated  in  a  living  animal;  (3)  that, 
while  they  differ  in  this  apparently  unimportant  particular, 
they  all  agree  in  going  to  Science  to  learn  what  the  Bible 
means  by  "dust  of  the  ground." 

We  do  not  know  (or  care)  anything  about  the  Science 
of  this  matter.  God  tells  us  in  his  word,  and  our  Confession 
of  Faith  and  Catechisms  repeat  it,  that  we  are  made  "out  of 
the  dust  of  the  ground."  This  we  believe — we  know. 
Nobody  knows  any  more.  And  these  gentlemen  may  dis- 
port as  they  list  in  the  uncertain  field  of  Science,  but  they 
must  allow  us  to  adhere  to  the  simple  declaration  of  Script- 
ure,  to  refuse   their   scientific  lucubrations   as   a   part  of 


842 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Scripture,  and  to  be  utterly  indifferent  to  all  their  learned 
guesses  concerning  what  is  outside  of  Scripture. 
This  is  enough  for  the  present. 

So  far  as  we  can  see,  the  above  is  an  accurate  statement 
of  facts,  except  in  a  single  particular ;  namely,  that  "they  all 
agree  in  going  to  Science  to  learn  what  the  Bible  means  by 
'dust  of  the  ground !'  "  From  this  we  must  dissent,  at  least 
as  regards  Dr.  Woodrow.  He  never  goes  to  science  to  learn 
what  the  Bible  means.  In  his  opinion  the  only  infallible 
rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture — the  only  rule  he  is 
willing  to  trust — is  the  Scripture  itself;  not  science,  not 
philosophy,  not  tradition,  but  the  Scripture  alone:  to  this 
alone  will  he  bow,  and  to  this  he  bows  without  hesitation. 

In  the  matter  under  discussion — the  meaning  of  the 
words,  "dust  of  the  ground" — there  is  a  question  about  the 
true  and  full  sense  of  the  expression;  and  therefore  he  has 
made  diligent  search  for  other  places  in  the  Scriptures  that 
speak  more  clearly.  This  search  has  led  him  to  believe  that 
in  this  case,  as  in  so  many  similar  ones,  it  does  not  seem  to 
be  God's  design  to  give  us  definite  information  in  his  word. 
If  this  conclusion  is  correct,  then  it  follows  that  no  opinion 
touching  the  matter  can  contradict  God's  word.  Therefore 
whether  we  agree  with  the  St.  Louis  Presbyterian,  or  Dr. 
Armstrong,  or  Dr.  Woodrow,  we  are  equally  free  from 
holding  views  inconsistent  with  the  teachings  of  the  Bible. 

Having  reached  this  point,  Dr.  Woodrow  supposes  that 
if  any  light  is  to  be  shed  on  the  question  of  the  origin  of 
Adam's  body,  beyond  the  fact  that  God  created  it  and 
created  it  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  that  light  must  come 
from  the  study  of  God's  works.  But  he  utterly  refuses  to 
inject  any  conclusion  he  may  reach  here  into  God's  word,  as 
controlling  its  meaning.  He  regards  the  subordination  of 
the  meaning  of  the  word  of  God  to  science  as  almost  if  not 
quite  equivalent  to  a  rejection  of  that  word ;  it  is  as  bad  as 
making  the  word  of  God  of  none  effect  through  men's  vain 
traditions.  He  does  not  doubt  and  has  never  doubted  a 
single  truth  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures,  however  "hard  to  be 
understood"  he  has  found  some  things. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


843 


With  all  our  heart  we  say,  with  the  St.  Louis  Presbyterian, 
that,  as  believers  in  the  Bible,  "we  do  not  know  (or  care) 
anything  about  the  Science  of  this  matter.  God  tells  us  in 
his  word,  and  our  Confession  of  Faith  and  Catechisms 
repeat  it,  that  we  are  made  'out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground/ 
This  we  believe — we  know." — July  I. 


Evolution. 

We  have  received  from  a  former  colleague  and  friend  in 
Louisiana,  and  also  from  other  friends  in  different  parts  of 
the  country,  copies  of  a  recent  number  of  the  Southern 
Churchman,  which  contains  an  editorial  article  on  the  ques- 
tion now  agitating  our  Church.  This  journal  is  published 
at  Richmond,  Va.,  and  is  edited  by  a  thoroughly  evangelical 
minister  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  It  presents 
views  which  are  perfectly  familiar  to  our  readers,  and  it 
presents  them  so  clearly  that  it  seems  to  us  that  if  any  one 
has  failed  hitherto  to  understand  exactly  what  we  have 
maintained,  he  certainly  cannot  do  so  longer  after  reading 
this  clear  statement  of  our  views. 

The  Southern  Churchman  says : 

"There  has  been  excitement  among  Southern  Presby- 
terians in  regard  to  one  of  their  theological  schools — that 
evolution  was  taught.  As  they  alone  are  responsible,  they 
must  settle  these  matters  for  themselves. 

"So  far  as  our  common  Christianity  is  concerned,  we  have 
the  same  right  to  discuss  as  any.  We  know  from  the  Book 
that  God  is  the  Creator  of  all  things;  this  beyond  all  the 
doubts.  But  the  Book  does  not  teach,  nor  was  designed  to 
teach,  how  or  in  what  way  God  did  create.  It  may  be 
impossible  to  discover  his  method,  or  it  may  not.  If  not 
impossible,  the  only  way  to  ascertain  the  mode  of  creation 
is  to  inquire  of  creation,  to  search  it  with  all  our  powers. 
This  the  scientists  have  been  doing,  and  they  tell  us  that 
the  method  in  which  God  created  was  by  development. 
This  may  be  false,  or  it  may  be  true ;  but,  whether  true  or 
false,  the  Christian  religion  has  nothing  to  do  with  it;  it  is 
simply  a  question  of  science.    We  tell  our  children  God 


844 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


made  them,  which  is  true  beyond  all  the  doubts;  but  he 
made  them  by  development  from  their  parents ;  as  much 
made  them  in  this  manner  as  if  he  had  called  them  into 
being  by  a  word,  without  any  predecessors.  If  God  made 
our  first  parents  by  development,  all  right;  why  not?  or  all 
wrong;  why  not?  We  do  not  know,  not  having  studied 
such  matters ;  but  whether  he  created  our  first  parents  in 
one  way  or  another,  he  is  the  one  only  Creator.  Religion 
has  no  more  to  do  with  settling  the  manner  of  God's  crea- 
tion than  it  has  to  do  with  arithmetic. 

"Rev.  Dr.  Woodrow,  the  Presbyterian  professor  who  is 
the  target  for  Presbyterian  arrows,  may  be  wrong  in  his 
view  of  creation,  believing  that  God  created  man — i.  e., 
his  body — by  development  from  other  animals.  He  may 
be  wrong,  he  may  be  right ;  but,  whether  right  or  wrong,  it 
is  not  a  question  of  religion,  or  of  Bible  exegesis — only  a 
question  of  scientific  research  perfectly  legitimate,  whether 
the  deductions  therefrom  are  true  or  false.  Let  the  Bible 
teach  who  is  our  Creator,  as  it  does;  but  it  does  not  teach 
the  mode  or  manner  or  method  in  which  or  by  which  it 
pleased  his  great  and  glorious  name  to  create.  If  he  created 
per  saltum,  blessed  be  he ;  if  otherwise,  blessed  be  he.  Wise 
the  watchmaker  who  made  it  to  keep  time ;  wiser  if  he  could 
have  made  it  not  only  to  keep  time,  but  to  evolve  other 
watches  as  well  ad  infinitum.  Wonderful  to  us  is  the  Crea- 
tor; more  wonderful  to  us  if  he  placed  in  protoplasm  the 
possibilities  of  all  the  manifold  changes  of  creation. 
Whether  he  did  this  latter,  we  know  not ;  but  if  he  did,  or  if 
he  did  not,  it  is  a  question  of  science,  not  at  all  of  religion. 

"As  Dr.  Woodrow  has  been  a  much-talked-of  man,  our 
readers  will  be  glad  to  see  a  letter  of  his,  addressed  to  the 
Charleston  (S.  C.)  News,  on  this  subject.  [Then  follows 
the  letter  which  we  have  already  published.] 

"It  is  to  be  understood  we  are  not  taking  sides  with  Dr. 
Woodrow.  He  may  be  right,  or  he  may  be  wrong.  All  we 
want  to  say,  the  mode  of  creation  is  not  a  matter  of  religion  ; 
only  of  science." — July  22. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


845 


From  the  Dust. 

The  following  discussion  of  the  meaning  of  "dust"  is 
taken  from  a  volume  entitled  "The  Story  of  Creation,"  writ- 
ten several  years  ago  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  S.  M.  Campbell.  Dr. 
Campbell  is  a  highly  esteemed  minister  in  the  Northern 
Presbyterian  Church;  at  the  time  when  this  volume  was 
published  he  was  pastor  of  a  church  in  Rochester,  N.  Y.,  and 
is  now  pastor  in  Minneapolis,  Minn.  We  do  not  know  his 
views  as  to  evolution  now,  but  when  he  wrote  what  we  here 
present,  he  was  a  decided  opponent  of  the  doctrine.  He 
speaks  exclusively  as  an  interpreter  of  the  Scriptures,  as  one 
who  fairly  and  candidly  seeks  the  exact  meaning  of  the 
word,  without  injecting  into  it  his  prejudices  or  precon- 
ceived notions  derived  from  tradition  or  ignorance. 

In  the  chapter  next  to  the  one  we  copy,  Dr.  Campbell 
presents  the  strongest  arguments  against  Darwinism,  but 
he  wisely  says : 

"The  true  method  of  assailing  Darwinism  is  not  to  quote 
Moses  against  it.  Moses  was  too  cautious  to  commit  him- 
self on  any  such  question." 

Dr.  Campbell  says : 

"And  the  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground."  In  what  sense  are  we  to  understand  these  words? 
Of  course  they  refer  to  the  human  body,  or  more  compre- 
hensively to  both  that  form  and  life  which  we  have  in  com- 
mon with  the  lower  orders  of  creation.  As  to  his  spiritual 
nature,  God  breathed  into  man  the  breath  of  life :  as  to  his 
animal  nature,  God  formed  it  of  the  dust  of  the  ground. 

May  we  reverently  ask  what  is  the  process  involved  in 
the  word  "formed"  here?  Did  the  Creator  take  a  quantity 
of  dust,  literally,  and  moisten  it,  and  mould  it  into  a  human 
figure  as  an  artist  moulds  his  "clay-form"?  We  shrink  a 
little  from  the  details  of  this  suggestion;  but  the  words  of 
the  narrative  admit  of  this  view,  and  it  is  one  which  a  large 
number  of  people  have  unconsciously  adopted.  We  may 
hold  such  a  view  and  still  believe  the  Bible;  but  there  are 
other  views  which  we  may  just  as  safely  adopt. 

Man  may  have  been  formed  from  the  dust  in  quite 
another  way.    He  may  have  been  so  formed,  not  imme- 


846 


DR.  JAMES  W00DR0W, 


diately  but  mediately.  As  those  of  our  race,  living  to-day, 
are  of  the  dust  through  previous  generations,  connecting 
them  with  a  dust-formed  ancestor,  so  that  ancestor  himself 
may  be  dust-formed  through  previous  generations  of  a  low- 
lier life,  from  which  he  may  have  been  evolved.  The  Mosaic 
account  is  precisely  as  good  for  one  of  these  theories  as  for 
the  other.  So  far  as  the  record  shows,  we  have  two  things 
to  believe,  and  no  more:  (i)  Man  was  created  by  God;  and 
(2)  as  to  his  animal  nature  he  is  an  earth  product,  like  the 
creatures  that  came  into  the  world  before  him. 

Professor  Tayler  Lewis  ("Six  Days,"  page  248)  says  on 
this  subject,  "We  are  not  much  concerned  about  the  mode 
of  production  of  his  material  or  merely  physical  organisa- 
tion. In  regard  to  this,  there  is  nothing  in  the  expressions 
'he  made'  or  'he  created  him'  or  'he  made  him  from  the 
earth'  which  is  at  war  with  the  idea  of  growth  or  develop- 
ment, during  either  a  longer  or  a  shorter  period.  Ages 
might  have  been  employed  in  bringing  that  material  nature, 
through  all  the  lower  stages,  up  to  the  necessary  degree  of 
perfection  for  the  higher  use  that  was  afterwards  to  be 
made  of  it." 

President  Potter,  (Letter  to  the  New  York  Tribune,  Dec. 
4,  1875)  °f  Union  College,  says,  "If  we  meet  the  Darwinian 
with  humorous  reference  to  supposed  apish  ancestry,  his 
retort  is  ready  that  an  ancestry  of  clods  is  not  less  objec- 
tionable, and  that  the  choice  lies  between  animate  and 
inanimate  dust." 

And  Professor  Winchell  ("Evolution,"  page  115)  says, 
"Is  it  less  credible  that  man  as  a  species  should  have  been 
developed  by  secondary  causes  from  an  ape,  than  that  by 
such  means  man  as  an  individual  should  rise  from  a  new- 
born babe  or  a  primitive  ovum  ?  It  is  no  more  derogatory  to 
man's  dignity,  to  have  been  at  some  former  period  an  ape, 
than  to  have  been  that  red  lump  of  mere  flesh  which  we  call 
a  human  infant." 

These  are  the  words  of  men  who  stand  too  well  as  Chris- 
tian believers  to  be  put  down  with  a  sneer;  and  they  are 
equally  men  who,  as  Christian  scholars,  have  a  right  to 
speak  on  this  question.   And,  while  they  refuse  to  be  tied  up 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


847 


to  the  system  of  Mr.  Darwin,  until  it  shall  be  more  thor- 
oughly established,  they  equally  refuse  to  be  tied  up  to  an 
interpretation  of  Scripture  from  which  we  shall  perhaps  in 
a  little  time  be  but  too  ready  to  retire. 

There  may  be  men  who  accept  the  development  hypothe- 
sis for  the  sake  of  making  an  assault  upon  all  Christian 
theism.  And  such  men  may  attempt  certain  inferences  from 
that  hypothesis,  which  would  conflict  with  Holy  Scripture. 
They  may  insist  that  as  man  derives  his  nature  from  that 
of  the  brute,  he  remains  but  a  brute,  though  one  of  special 
culture.  They  may  deny  that  there  has  been  any  inbreath- 
ing of  God  into  man's  nature,  or  that  he  is  in  any  superior 
sense  a  living  soul.  And  so  they  may  deny  the  doctrine  of 
immortality,  and  of  sin,  and  of  redemption.  They  may  even 
deny  the  existence  of  God.  But  the  hypothesis  warrants  no 
such  conclusions ;  and  should  any  exigency  occur  in  which 
we  must  either  give  up  our  belief  in  the  Mosaic  history,  or 
find  in  that  history  a  place  for  the  general  views  of  creation 
held  by  Mr.  Darwin,  no  Christian  need  be  alarmed.  As  to 
this  human  creation,  Moses  himself  says  it  is  from  the  dust; 
and  if  so,  it  may  as  well  be  a  development  as  an  immediate 
creation. 

If  the  Bible  had  said  that  God  moulded  a  clay  figure  in 
human  form,  and  then  set  it  up,  and  breathed  life  into  it,  we 
should  of  course  be  obliged  to  accept  the  statement  as  some- 
how true.  But,  as  it  says  no  such  thing,  we  are  not  wise 
to  invent  so  clumsy  a  theory  and  then  rest  upon  it  all  our 
faith  in  the  Book.  The  form  into  which  God  breathed  that 
final  nature  that  made  it  human  may  have  been,  so  far  as 
the  record  shows,  for  ages  preparing.  It  may  have  been 
slowly  brought  up  through  countless  generations  of  lowlier 
life.  And  the  inbreathing  may  have  come  just  as  it  reached 
the  place  where  it  had  become  a  fit  temple  for  an  indwelling 
soul.  We  do  not  say  that  the  Bible  teaches  this.  We  say 
it  teaches  neither  the  one  thing  nor  the  other.  We  only 
affirm  that  while  the  doctrine  of  the  immediate,  sudden, 
instantaneous  creation  of  man  is  consistent  with  sacred 
Scripture,  the  doctrine  of  the  natural  development  of  his 
animal  nature  from  some  lower  order  of  being,  dust-formed, 


848 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


is  equally  so.  An  omnific  word  may  have  started  the  original 
germ.  Another  word  may  have  set  it  higher  and  sent  it 
on  an  upward  way.  And  when  it  reached  that  point  where 
it  could  be  combined  with  a  soul,  God  may  have  breathed 
into  it  that  immortal  nature,  in  the  possession  of  which 
it  fell  from  its  estate  of  innocence,  and  afterward  was 
redeemed  through  the  suffering  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord. — Aug.  5. 

Comments. 

From  numerous  comments  on  the  recent  trial  of  Professor 
Woodrow,  we  select  the  following : 

The  Christian  Index  (Baptist),  of  Atlanta,  Ga.,  says: 

"  'The  charge  of  heresy  made  against  Dr.  Woodrow,  Pro- 
fessor in  the  Theological  Seminary  in  Columbia,  S.  C,  has 
not  been  sustained.  The  Professor  was  accused  by  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Adams,  of  Augusta,  Ga.,  of  holding  doctrines  in  conflict 
with  the  Confession  of  Faith,  growing  out  of  his  exposition 
of  the  scientific  hypothesis  of  "Evolution,"  but  by  a  vote  of 
13  [14]  to  9  the  Presbytery  of  Augusta  has  declared  him 
not  guilty.  Dr.  Adams  has  appealed  to  the  Synod  of 
Georgia,  and  the  whole  perplexing  and  exciting  case  will  go 
to  the  Southern  General  Assembly  next  year.' 

"Dr.  Woodrow  was  condemned  and  sentenced  last  June 
[May].  In  August  (after  he  was  condemned  and  sen- 
tenced) he  was  tried!  On  the  trial  he  was  found  not  guilty. 
Thus  the  condemnation  and  sentence  are  mashed  very  flat. 
Now  the  case,  already  twice  decided  on,  goes  to  the  Synod, 
and  after  that  to  the  General  Assembly.  Such  are  the  beau- 
ties of  the  Presbyterian  church  government.  Their  method 
of  condemning  first  and  trying  afterwards  is  worthy  of 
many  exclamation  marks  !  !  !" 

There  is  no  denying  the  facts  as  stated  above.  We  can- 
not admit,  however,  that  "Presbyterian  church  government" 
is  responsible  for  these  "beauties."  They  are  rather  deform- 
ities resulting  from  an  utter  disregard  and  violation  of 
every  principle  of  that  government. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


849 


Here  is  another  accurate  statement  of  the  case : 

"The  unpleasant  dilemma  which  we  have  all  along  been 
foretelling  (says  the  New  York  Evangelist)  is  already  com- 
ing upon  our  brethren  of  the  Southern  Church  in  the  Wood- 
row  case.  The  genial  Professor  has  been  tried  by  his  own 
Presbytery  on  the  charges  informally  preferred  against  him 
in  the  Augusta  Assembly,  and  has  been  formally  acquitted 
by  a  vote  of  thirteen  [14]  to  nine.  On  one  hand,  the  Assem- 
bly has  declared  him  guilty  of  holding  and  teaching  heresy, 
and  has  instructed  the  Synods  specially  concerned  with  the 
care  of  the  Columbia  Seminary,  to  discharge  him  for  such 
belief  and  teaching.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Presbytery  has 
declared  him  innocent  of  the  offence  alleged,  and  now 
formally  gives  him  an  unchallenged  place  in  its  member- 
ship. What  will  happen  next !  Shall  the  Assembly  put  the 
Presbytery  on  trial,  or  exscind  it,  after  the  manner  of  1837, 
without  trial  ?  Shall  the  Synods  obey  the  Assembly,  and  put 
out  a  man  declared  to  be  orthodox,  or  wait  till  the  case 
comes  before  them  by  reference  or  appeal?  Shall  Dr. 
Woodrow  occupy  his  chair  as  a  sound  and  trustworthy 
teacher,  according  to  the  decision  of  his  Presbytery,  or 
shall  the  trustees  eject  him  from  office  while  he  holds  in  his 
hands  this  Presbyterial  endorsement  of  his  soundness?  All 
this,  and  much  more,  comes  from  beginning  at  the  back  end 
first,  and  trying  to  do  things  in  a  wrong,  disorderly,  uncon- 
stitutional way." 

Yes,  it  all  "comes  from  beginning  at  the  back  end  first, 
and  trying  to  do  things  in  a  wrong,  disorderly,  unconstitu- 
tional way,"  as  any  one  can  very  easily  see. 

The  Interior  (Chicago)  says : 

"The  results  of  the  recent  trial  of  Rev.  Dr.  Woodrow  by 
his  Presbytery,  and  of  his  acquittal,  don't  seem  to  have  been 
oil  poured  upon  the  troubled  waters  of  our  Southern  Pres- 
byterian Church.  After  a  temporary  lull,  the  war-whoop, 
the  clash  of  spiritual  armor,  and  the  pop  of  spiritual  guns 
seem  louder  than  before.  We  regret  all  this  because  of 
what  can  scarcely  fail  to  be  its  disastrous  effect  upon  the 
work  of  the  Southern  Church.  While  it  is  true  that,  in 
spite  of  the  excitement  over  this  Woodrow  evolution  busi- 


54 — w 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


ness,  the  contributions  to  the  working  agencies  of  that 
Church  were  creditably  increased  last  year,  storm-centres 
are  not  favorable  to  the  growth  of  such  things,  and  we  fear 
that  a  similar  announcement  cannot  be  made  at  the  close  of 
the  current  year.  And  while,  in  one  sense,  this  is  neither 
our  fight  nor  our  funeral,  we  regret  for  the  Church's  sake 
that,  in  view  of  the  large  majority  against  him,  Dr.  Wood- 
row  does  not  retire  from  his  position  in  the  Seminary  and 
wait  with  a  dignified  patience  the  Master's  time  for  justice — 
if  an  injustice  has  really  been  done  him." 

The  regret  here  expressed  is  largely  shared  by  all  those 
who,  for  the  last  two  years,  have  been  trying  in  unlawful 
ways  to  drive  out  Dr.  Woodrow  as  a  heretic.  Failing  in 
this,  it  is  surprising  how  solicitous  they  have  become  on  his 
account  and  how  anxious  that  for  his  own  sake  he  should 
voluntarily  resign.  To  be  sure,  to  do  this  would  be  a  plain 
though  indirect  admission  of  his  guilt  as  a  heretic,  and  that 
he  had  been  teaching  what  he  had  sworn  he  would  not 
teach ;  but  then,  as  the  Interior  suggests,  he  could  "wait  with 
a  dignified  patience  the  Master's  time  for  justice"!  That  is 
precisely  what  he  is  trying  to  do ;  though  he  does  not  share 
the  doubt  the  Interior  expresses  when  it  says,  "If  an  injus- 
tice has  really  been  done  him."  But  we  were  not  prepared 
for  such  advice  from  that  journal.  We  should  rather  have 
expected  from  it  such  a  practical  exposition  of  Calvinism  as 
Cromwell  gave  when  he  said :  "Trust  in  God,  and  keep  your 
powder  dry." 

The  Herald  and  Presbyter  (Cincinnati)  does  not  often 
agree  with  the  Interior,  but  they  are  at  one  in  this  case.  It 
likewise  evinces  the  tenderest  concern  for  Dr.  Woodrow. 
The  change  is  gratifying,  for  in  its  editorial  articles  hitherto, 
neither  fairness  nor  tenderness  have  been  conspicuous.  It 
says : 

"Time  will  show,  as  we  believe,  that  the  great  blunder  of 
the  case  was  Dr.  Woodrow's  refusal  to  resign  when  asked 
to  do  so  by  the  Board.  Strife  and  personal  feeling  are 
increasing,  and  the  end  may  be  that  he  may  be  judicially 
condemned  by  the  highest  court  of  his  Church.  If  so,  his 
refusal  to  resign  will  be  found  to  have  given  his  enemies 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


851 


the  majority.  If  he  had  resigned,  a  majority — in  all  proba- 
bility nine-tenths — of  his  brethren  would  have  been  willing 
to  have  borne  with  him  for  a  long  time,  perhaps  indefinitely, 
and  he  might  have  so  modified  or  explained  his  views  as  to 
remain  rectus  in  ecclesia." 

What  a  blunder  Dr.  Woodrow  has  made !  How  he  has 
lost  his  chance  of  being  "borne  with"  by  his  brethren,  at 
least  by  nine-tenths  of  them,  in  all  probability.  "Borne 
with" — just  see  what  he  has  lost.  The  Herald  and  Presbyter 
is  doubtless  right  in  this  opinion;  indeed,  we  think  it  might 
safely  have  said  ten-tenths  instead  of  nine ;  for  has  not  even 
his  late  prosecutor,  Dr.  Adams,  said  he  had  no  objection  to 
leave  him  "rectus  in  ecclesia"  "if  he  would  only  resign"? 
And  did  not  his  late  colleague,  Dr.  Girardeau,  tell  him  two 
years  ago  that  substantially  all  he  wished  was  that  "he 
would  only  resign"?  And  then  to  think  again  of  the  honor 
Dr.  Woodrow  would  have  secured  for  himself — he  would 
have  been  "borne  with."    "Borne  with"  indeed. 

In  order  to  remain  "rectus  in  ecclesia"  Dr.  Woodrow  pre- 
ferred what  he  regards  as  a  better  way — namely,  meeting 
his  accusers  face  to  face  before  his  peers,  and  having  them 
hear  and  decide.  Their  decision,  the  only  one  yet  lawfully 
given,  was  that  in  every  respect  their  fellow-presbyter  is 
absolutely  rectus  in  ecclesia.  Is  not  that  better  than  being 
"borne  with"  by  nine-tenths? 

The  Herald  and  Presbyter  says  very  correctly  that  "the  tes- 
timony was  certainly  not  sufficient  to  sustain  the  charge." 
But  it  errs  in  its  reasons  for  this  statement;  for  it  seems 
to  think  that  the  evidence  that  could  have  been  brought 
against  Dr.  Woodrow  was  not  brought.  We  cannot 
allow  this  injustice  to  be  done  the  prosecutor,  Dr. 
Adams.  He  put  in  evidence  all  the  documents  that  Dr. 
Woodrow's  extremest  and  shrewdest  opponents  could 
regard  as  containing  what  was  anti-scriptural;  and  all  the 
parts  of  these  that  could  by  any  one  be  regarded  as  heretical 
were  carefully  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  court  by  both 
the  prosecutor  and  the  accused.  After  a  deliberate  con- 
sideration of  the  whole  case  thus  fully  presented,  the  court 
gave  its  judgment  on  the  merits  of  the  case.  That  judgment 


852 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


was  that  the  teachings  of  Dr.  Woodrow's  Address  and  other 
writings  are  not  contrary  to  the  Sacred  Scriptures  as  inter- 
preted in  our  standards.  The  judgment  was  not  that  the 
accused  might  hold  his  views  because  he  thought  them  to  be 
right,  or  because  they  were  of  no  importance;  he  neither 
asked  nor  desired  nor  would  have  accepted  the  privilege  (if 
it  is  a  privilege)  of  holding  and  teaching  his  views,  if  con- 
trary to  the  Bible  as  interpreted  in  our  standards.  No; 
the  court  decided  that  his  views  are  not  contrary  to  the 
Bible  so  interpreted — that,  and  nothing  less,  nothing  more. 

The  only  other  comment  to  which  we  shall  now  allude  is 
one  made  by  the  Springfield  Republican.    It  says : 

"Whenever  things  get  dull  with  the  Presbyterians  of  the 
South,  they  turn  to  and  try  Prof.  Woodrow  for  heresy.  The 
trial  usually  comes  earlier  in  the  season,  but  this  has  been 
an  exceptional  year  for  early  crops  and  things  are  a  little 
mixed.  The  Augusta  (Ga.)  Presbytery  has  just  finished  the 
heresy  drama  for  this  year." 

Without  venturing  to  decide  whether  the  correct  reason  is 
here  assigned,  it  is  certainly  true  that  these  so-called  "trials" 
or  "not-trials"  have  been  recurring  with  great  regularity 
now  for  a  long  time  nearly  all  over  our  Church.  But  the 
first  legal  trial  is  that  which  has  just  been  held.  There 
have  been  plenty — too  many,  perhaps — of  judgments,  sen- 
tences, etc. ;  but  all  without  the  semblance  of  law  or  consti- 
tutional right.  But  we  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  our 
Massachusetts  friend  to  the  fact  that  Dr.  Woodrow  is  in 
no  way  responsible  for  this  frequency.  He  has  all  along 
been  asking  for  only  the  one  trial,  which  he  has  just  now 
had.  He  has  constantly  been  standing  on  the  defensive. 
There  has  been  nothing  that  he  could  do  that  would  put  a 
stop  to  the  "quasi"  or  "virtual"  trials.  It  is  a  weary  strug- 
gle to  him,  but  it  is  not  of  his  choosing.  Though  it  should 
weary  him  to  death,  he  cannot  do  otherwise  than  as  he  has 
been  doing.  Quail,  or  flee,  or  surrender  the  truth,  he  cannot. 
He  has  always  been  ready  to  submit  to  the  constitutionally 
expressed  judgment  of  the  Church,  or  quietly  to  withdraw 
from  its  jurisdiction  if  he  found  he  could  not  do  that  with  a 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


853 


clear  conscience;  but  he  prizes  justice  and  right  too  highly 
to  aid  any  body,  however  venerable,  in  setting  its  own  laws 
at  defiance,  so  long  as  resistance  is  possible.  So  far  as  he 
can  see,  no  other  course  is  open  to  him  consistently  with 
loyalty  to  truth,  to  right,  and  to  God. — Sept.  16. 


"Good  Logical  Inferences/' 

"The  Southwestern  Presbyterian  says  that  the  'late  Assem- 
bly repudiated  the  Ape  as  a  factor  of  Presbyterian  theology, 
and  recommended  the  removal  of  Professor  Woodrow,  his 
spokesman,  from  the  Columbia  Seminary.' 

"That's  very  smart,  we  suppose.  But  it  is  not  true.  Pro- 
fessor Woodrow  is  not  a  'spokesman'  for  the  Ape.  He  has 
not  intimated  that  the  Ape  is  the  ancestor  of  the  editor  of 
the  Southwestern  Presbyterian  or  of  any  other  man. 

"Said  editor  and  others  have  rung  the  changes  on  Ape 
and  Ape-ism,  drawing  wholly  on  their  fancy,  and  by  such 
unfair  ridicule  have  misled  their  readers,  wronged  Dr. 
Woodrow,  and  greatly  hindered  calm  consideration  and  a 
quiet  adjustment  of  the  difficulty.  Dr.  Woodrow,  it  is  but 
just  to  repeat,  has  not  said  that  man  is  probably  descended 
from  the  Monkey.  Perhaps,  considering  the  gross  misre- 
presentation of  his  views  and  the  bitterness  with  which  he 
has  been  personally  assailed,  his  scientific  investigation 
might  incline  to  the  conclusion  that  the  living  organism 
which  the  Almighty  transformed  into  a  human  body  was 
something  fiercer  than  an  Ape. 

"We  reiterate,  we  are  not  a  particular  'friend'  of  Dr. 
Woodrow,  and  we  do  not  agree  at  all  with  his  evolution 
hypothesis,  but  we  hold  that,  particularly  at  such  a  time  as 
this,  Peace  and  Justice  and  Truth  demand  fairness." 

The  St.  Louis  Presbyterian  of  last  week  uttered  this 
emphatic  condemnation  of  the  representation  of  Professor 
Woodrow's  views  made  by  the  paper  named.  As  it  says, 
this  representation  is  "not  true."  Its  want  of  truth  has 
often  been  pointed  out  before;  therefore  we  suppose 
that  the  authors  of  this  and  of  similar  assertions  will  go  on 


854 


DR.  JAMES  WOQDROW. 


making  them  just  as  if  their  truthlessness  had  not  been 
shown.  The  appeal  for  "fairness"  will  in  all  probability  go 
unheeded. 

How  can  this  be  explained?  It  would  be  easy  to  say  that 
the  authors  of  such  statements  make  them  knowing  them  to 
be  false.  That  we  cannot  believe.  It  may  be,  and  no  doubt 
is  so  with  some ;  but  we  believe  that  the  greater  number  of 
those  who  make  these  false  statements  really  think  that  they 
are  true.  If  any  one  should  ask  us  how  this  can  be,  when 
the  statements  are  so  obviously  untrue,  we  would  have  to 
confess  our  inability  to  give  a  satisfactory  answer.  Their 
authors  are  not  wilfully  dishonest;  they  are  not  ignorant, 
at  least  on  other  points.  The  only  suggestion  we  could 
make  is  that,  partly  perhaps  under  the  influence  of  prejudice 
and  partly  from  want  of  knowledge  of  such  subjects,  they 
draw  what  they  regard  as  "good  logical  inferences,"  and  then 
assert  that  their  inferences  honestly  and  fairly  set  forth  the 
views  criticised,  when  in  reality  they  are  nothing  better 
than  shocking  caricatures  of  them. 

It  might  be  supposed  that  Presbyterians  would  be  espe- 
cially on  their  guard  against  such  mistakes  and  such 
grievous  injustice.  They  are  familiar  with  the  fact  that  the 
opponents  of  our  doctrines  pursue  this  course  habitually, 
and  they  fully  recognise  the  unfairness  and  injustice  of  it. 
For  example,  the  Anti-Trinitarian  says  that  a  "good  logical 
inference"  from  our  doctrinal  statements  is  that  we  believe 
in  three  Gods.  He  then  argues  against  polytheism;  and 
when  he  has  disproved  it,  he  claims  that  he  has  overthrown 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  So  the  Anti-Calvinist  asserts 
that  our  Confession  of  Faith  teaches  the  doctrine  of  fatal- 
ism ;  that  however  sincerely  one  may  believe  in  the  Saviour 
and  however  holy  his  life  may  be,  he  is  certainly  lost  unless 
he  is  one  of  the  elect;  on  the  other  hand,  that  if  one  lives 
all  his  life  in  wanton  wickedness,  committing  all  manner  of 
sin,  rejecting  and  blaspheming  the  Saviour  to  his  last 
breath,  he  will  assuredly  be  saved,  if  only  he  is  one  of  the 
elect,  as  it  is  inferred  he  may  be  according  to  our  standards. 
The  Anti-Calvinist  then  proves  that  these  shocking  doc- 
trines are  directly  contrary  to  the  teachings  of  the  Bible ; 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


855 


and  he  then  supposes  and  claims  that  he  has  completely 
demolished  our  Confession  of  Faith. 

Now,  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  Anti-Trinitarian  and  the 
Anti-Calvinist  are  either  wilfully  dishonest  or  stupidly  ignor- 
ant. They  are  neither.  And  yet  they  do  what  seems  at 
first  sight  to  make  it  a  "good  logical  inference"  that  they 
must  be  either  one  or  the  other  or  both.  How  this  inference 
is  to  be  avoided,  we  do  not  know ;  but  for  all  that,  we  cannot 
and  will  not  accept  it.  There  must  be  some  explanation 
that  justifies  the  rejection  of  what  seems  to  be  so  good  and 
logical  an  inference,  though  we  are  forced  to  confess  our 
inabilty  to  see  what  it  can  be.   So  it  is  in  the  case  before  us. 

The  fact  remains,  however,  that  Professor  Woodrow  has 
never  taught  or  even  thought  what  his  opponents  attribute 
to  him ;  and  at  least  ninety-nine  hundredths  of  what  they 
argue  against  as  his  views  he  rejects,  and  must  be  set  down 
as  inferences  drawn  by  his  opponents — inferences,  not  good 
and  logical,  but  horribly  bad  and  utterly  illogical — Oct.  21. 

Presbyterians  and  Evolution. 

The  Wilmingtonian  (Del.)  publishes  an  article  with  the 
above  heading,  in  which  it  undertakes  to  give  an  account  of 
the  relations  between  Dr.  Woodrow  and  the  Columbia 
Theological  Seminary.  It  makes  some  mistakes,  but  it  is 
not  necessary  to  our  present  purpose  to  correct  them,  inas- 
much as  its  statement  of  Dr.  Woodrow's  "alleged  heresy" 
in  the  paragraph  which  it  quotes  is  accurate.  We  publish  it 
now  in  order  that  we  may  once  more  explain  what  it  finds 
it  "difficult  to  understand."  It  might  not  be  worth  while  to 
do  this  for  the  sake  of  those  who  are  beyond  the  limits  of 
our  Church;  but  we  do  it  for  the  sake  of  a  number  of  our 
best  friends  within  our  Church,  who,  like  the  Wilmingtonian, 
find  "his  position  difficult  to  understand  and  quite  open  to 
all  the  criticisms  that  his  persistency  calls  down  upon  him." 

The  Wilmingtonian' s  article  is  as  follows : 

The  majority  of  the  local  body  of  Presbyterian  Synods 
(there  are  four  having  jurisdiction  over  Columbia  College) 
having  asked  the  doctor  to  resign,  he  has  refused.  And  now 
the  governors  of  the  school  have  proceeded  to  close  it  as  the 


856 


DR.  JAMSS  WOODROW. 


only  method  by  which  they  see  their  way  of  attaining  their 
end. 

It  is  remembered  that  not  very  long  ago,  at  a  certain 
crisis,  Dr.  MacArthur,  the  noted  Baptist  minister  of  Calvary 
church,  New  York  City,  said  : 

"For  myself,  should  I  cease  to  hold  the  views  touching  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  the  vicarious  atonement  of 
Christ,  and  other  doctrines  of  evangelical  Christianity,  I 
should  give  up  my  Christian  name.  When  I  step  off  the 
platform  touching  baptism,  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  any  dis- 
tinctively Baptist  views  on  which  I  stood  when  I  received 
ordination  as  a  Baptist  minister,  I  shall  give  up  my  denom- 
inational name  as  a  Baptist  minister.  I  shall  relieve  the 
denomination  of  all  responsibility  for  my  acts.  Common 
honesty  requires  that  when  a  minister  has  abandoned  the 
views  on  profession  of  which  he  received  denominational 
recognition,  he  should  no  longer  enjoy  the  emoluments  and 
honors  of  that  denomination.  How  a  man  can  wear  his 
Church's  armor  while  he  is  stabbing  her  to  the  heart  is  more 
than  an  honest  man  can  understand.  The  maligned  politi- 
cian is  above  such  unmanliness.  I  must  say  as  the  years 
advance  I  hold  my  ordination  vows  with  a  firmer  grasp  and 
a  tenderer  love,  I  believe  with  every  drop  of  blood  in  the  old, 
the  blessed  Book,  in  the  old  gospel  and  the  old  methods  of 
winning  men  to  God,  etc.,  etc." 

Now,  Dr.  Woodrow  persistently  refuses  to  resign  from 
the  emoluments  he  holds  through  the  fact  of  his  ordination 
vows. 

His  position  is  difficult  to  understand  and  is  quite  open  to 
all  the  criticisms  that  his  persistency  calls  down  upon  him. 

The  logic  of  his  position  is  not  that  he  may  hold  and 
teach  more  mathematically  exact  expoundings  of  the  exe- 
gesis of  Scripture,  but  distinctively  that  he  teaches  his 
classes  in  the  Theological  Seminary  views  not  in  conso- 
nance with  those  by  which  he  attained  ordination  in  the 
Presbyterian  denomination,  the  appointment  of  the  presi- 
dency of  Columbia  Theological  Seminary,  and  the  chair  of 
Natural  Science  in  Connexion  with  Revelation,  in  that  school. 

Now,  we  may  say,  in  the  first  place,  that  Dr.  Woodrow 
agrees  fully  with  every  sentiment  here  quoted  from  Dr. 
MacArthur,  and  if  he  had  abandoned  the  Christian  belief,  he 
would  at  once  have  abandoned  the  Christian  name;  if  he 
had  abandoned  the  doctrines  of  Presbyterianism,  he  would 
have  renounced  the  name  of  Presbyterian.    But  inasmuch 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


857 


as  he  has  done  neither,  but  claims  that  he  believes  the 
teachings  of  the  Bible  and  the  doctrines  of  the  Presbyterian 
standards  as  firmly  as  any  man  living,  he  insists  that  Dr. 
MacArthur's  just  sentiments  have  no  possible  application  to 
him.  This  claim  does  not  rest  merely  on  his  own  opinion, 
but  also  on  the  judgment  of  many  of  the  best  and  wisest  men 
in  the  Church.  The  Board  of  Directors  of  the  Seminary  in 
September,  1884,  after  the  most  careful  examination  of  his 
views  on  evolution,  declared  that  "there  is  nothing  in  the 
doctrine  of  evolution,  as  defined  and  limited  by  him,  which 
appears  inconsistent  with  perfect  soundness  in  the  faith;" 
and  the  Presbytery  which  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century 
ago  had  ordained  him,  declared,  last  August,  after  a  trial 
lasting  two  days,  that  he  was  "not  guilty  of  holding  or 
teaching  anything  contrary  to  the  Sacred  Scriptures  as 
interpreted  in  our  standards." 

It  must  be  plain  from  the  foregoing  that  it  is  erroneous 
to  suppose  that  the  quotation  from  Dr.  MacArthur  applies 
in  any  way  to  Dr.  Woodrow. 

But  granting  this,  it  may  be  asked,  Has  not  Dr.  Woodrow 
manifested  unseemly  "pertinacity"  in  refusing  to  resign, 
after  having  been  so  often  requested  to  do  so? 

Before  answering  this  question,  it  may  be  well  to  look  at 
the  history  of  this  part  of  the  case. 

In  September,  1884,  Dr.  Woodrow  received  a  communi- 
cation from  the  Board  of  Directors  in  which  his  course  was 
commended  in  the  strongest  terms.  The  next  communica- 
tion he  received  from  the  Board  (largely  changed  mean- 
while in  its  membership)  informed  him  that  he  was  "dis- 
qualified as  a  Professor  in  their  Seminary,  and  thereby  ren- 
dered incompetent  to  discharge  duties  in  the  name  and  by 
the  authority  of  these  Synods,"  and  therefore  asked  for  his 
resignation.  Thus  without  trial  or  a  hearing  of  any  kind 
before  the  Board,  he  was  declared  guilty  and  asked  to 
resign  merely  to  avoid  expulsion.  Believing  that  a  com- 
pliance with  this  request  would  have  been  an  admission  of 
the  truth  of  the  charges  against  him,  he  refused  to  resign, 
because  he  was  fully  persuaded  that  he  was  wholly  guilt- 
less.   And  there  has  not  been  a  moment  from  that  day  to 


858 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


this  when  he  could  have  resigned  without  thereby  admit- 
ting that  he  was  guilty. 

We  are  aware  that  not  a  few  of  his  best  friends  do  not 
agree  with  him  on  this  point.  This  he  deeply  regrets ;  but 
of  course  he  must  act  in  accordance  with  his  own  convic- 
tions, while  profoundly  respecting  the  opinions  of  his 
brethren. 

Let  us  try  to  make  his  position  plainer  by  an  illustration. 
Suppose  a  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  should  fall  under 
the  displeasure  of  members  of  the  Legislature,  who  charged 
him  with  violating  his  oath  of  office,  with  corrupt  and 
wicked  rulings,  etc.,  and  who  by  persistent  efforts  succeeded 
in  inducing  the  Legislature  to  ask  him  on  these  grounds  to 
resign,  what  should  that  justice  do?  Should  he  resign? 
Would  he  not  disgrace  himself  for  ever  in  the  eyes  of  hon- 
orable men  by  resigning?  Would  not  his  resignation  be 
an  admission  of  the  truth  of  the  charges  against  him? 
Would  he  not  and  should  he  not  demand  an  investigation 
and  trial  according  to  law?  And  if  he  could  not  secure  this, 
would  he  not  infinitely  prefer  expulsion  from  office  by 
lawless  men?  The  disgrace  of  the  expulsion  would  not  rest 
upon  him;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  should  he  resign,  his 
disgrace  would  be  ineffaceable. 

So  it  is  in  the  case  before  us. — Nov.  25. 


"Within  the  Space  of  Six  Days/' 

The  Confession  of  Faith  says  that  "it  pleased  God.  .  .  . 
in  the  beginning  to  create  or  make  of  nothing  the  world,  and 
all  things  therein,  whether  visible  or  invisible,  in  the  space 
of  six  days."  The  Larger  Catechism  says:  "The  work  of 
creation  is  that  wherein  God  did  in  the  beginning,  by  the 
word  of  his  power,  make  of  nothing  the  world  and  all  things 
therein  for  himself,  within  the  space  of  six  days,  and  all 
very  good."  The  teaching  of  the  Shorter  Catechism  is  in 
similar  words. 

It  is  generally  believed  that  the  framers  of  our  standards 
understood  by  "days"  in  these  passages  periods  of  twenty- 
four  hours  each,  and,  therefore,  that  they  meant  by  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


859 


sentences  which  we  have  quoted  that  the  entire  work  of 
creation  from  the  beginning  to  the  creation  of  man  was 
completed  in  one  hundred  and  forty-four  hours. 

It  has  recently  been  denied  that  such  was  their  belief ;  and 
the  excellent  Baird  Lecture  for  1882  on  "The  Westminster 
Assembly,"  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  A.  F.  Mitchell  of  St.  Andrews 
University,  is  relied  upon  to  substantiate  this  denial.  Pro- 
fessor Mitchell's  work  is  not  in  the  hands  of  all  who  are 
interested  in  the  question,  and  we  have  often  been  asked 
to  state  his  arguments.  We  therefore  publish  below  all 
that  he  says  on  the  point.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  substance 
of  it  is  that  the  idea  that  "day"  might  mean  a  long  period 
had  often  been  suggested  before  the  Assembly  met,  and  that 
its  members,  being  scholars,  must  have  known  it.  But  there 
is  no  evidence  that  a  single  one  of  them  accepted  the  sug- 
gestion as  even  possibly  true;  and  in  fact  it  is  not  known 
that  a  single  word  was  uttered  on  the  subject  in  the  West- 
minster Assembly  from  the  day  when  it  met,  July  1st,  1643, 
to  the  time  when  it  completed  its  work,  in  1647  or  1648. 

Hence  it  would  seem  that  there  is  not  the  slightest  foun- 
dation for  the  supposition  that  the  Westminster  divines 
considered  the  question  at  all,  or  that  they  resolved  to  leave 
it  open,  not  desiring  to  decide  it  in  any  way;  if  there  is 
any  foundation  for  such  a  supposition,  it  is  the  slenderest 
conceivable. 

We  do  not  intend  ourselves  to  discuss  the  matter ;  but  we 
may  say  that,  while  it  is  barely  possible  that  "day"  in  the 
account  of  the  creation  may  mean  something  else  than 
twenty-four  hours,  we  have  failed  to  find  any  convincing 
reason  for  believing  that  either  the  Bible  or  the  Westmin- 
ster Standards  so  teach;  and  no  considerations  imported 
from  without  should  for  a  moment  be  allowed  to  control 
our  interpretation  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures. 

Professor  Mitchell  (Westminster  Assembly,  pp,  394-397) 
says : 

"The  charges  I  have  still  to  mention  are  of  minor  import- 
ance. The  first  of  them  is  the  assertion,  so  often  and  con- 
fidently propounded  of  late,  that  the  Confession  represents 
the  creation  of  the  world  as  having  taken  place  in  six  'natu- 


860 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


ral  or  literal  days/  which  almost  all  orthodox  divines  now 
grant  that  it  did  not.  But  the  whole  ground  for  the  asser- 
tion is  furnished  by  the  words  'natural  or  literal'  which  the 
objectors  themselves  insert  or  assume.  The  authors  of  the 
Confession,  as  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  has  well  observed,  simply 
repeat  the  statements  of  Scripture  in  almost  identical  terms, 
and  any  interpretation  that  is  fairly  applicable  to  such  pas- 
sages of  Scripture  as  Gen.  2:2  and  Exodus  20:11,  is  equally 
applicable  to  the  words  of  the  Confession.  It  is  quite  true, 
as  he  has  shown,  that  since  the  Confession  was  composed, 
many  facts  of  science  previously  unknown  have  been 
brought  to  light  respecting  the  changes  through  which  our 
globe  and  probably  the  stellar  universe  had  passed  before 
the  establishment  of  the  present  order  of  things,  and  that 
new  arguments  have  thus  been  furnished  against  interpret- 
ing the  days  mentioned  in  the  above  passages  of  Scripture 
as  literal  days.  But  it  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  this 
method  of  interpreting  the  days  in  these  passages  origin- 
ated in  modern  times,  and  was  altogether  unknown  to  the 
men  who  framed  our  Confession.  To  prove  it  is  a  mistake 
it  is  not  necessary  to  have  recourse  to  the  ingenious  con- 
jecture, that  some  of  the  Cambridge  men  in  the  Assembly 
may  have  been  acquainted  with  the  manuscript  work  of 
Dean  Colet,  preserved  in  their  archives,  and  only  given  to 
the  public  in  our  own  time,  in  which  the  figurative  inter- 
pretation of  the  days  of  creation  is  maintained.  There  is 
no  lack  of  evidence,  in  works  published  before  the  meeting 
of  the  Assembly,  and  familiar  to  several  of  its  members,  to 
show  that  the  figurative  interpretation  had  long  before  Dean 
Colet's  time  commended  itself  to  several  eminent  scholars 
and  divines  with  whose  works  members  of  the  Assembly 
were  acquainted.  If  there  was  one  Jewish  scholar  with 
whose  writings  such  men  as  Lightfoot,  Selden,  Gataker, 
Seaman,  and  Coleman  were  more  familiar  than  another,  it 
was  Philo  of  Alexandria;  and  Philo  has  not  hesitated  to 
characterise  it  as  'rustic  simplicity,  to  imagine  that  the 
world  was  created  in  six  days,  or,  indeed,  in  any  clearly 
defined  space  of  time.'  Augustine,  the  great  Latin  doctor, 
with  whose  works  several  of  the  Westminster  divines  were 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


861 


far  better  acquainted  than  most  of  their  successors,  in  his 
literal  Commentary  on  Genesis,  maintains  that  the  days  of 
the  creation-week  were  far  different  from  (longe  dispares) 
and  again,  very  unlike  to  {multum  impares)  those  that  now 
are  in  the  earth.  Procopius,  a  Greek  writer  not  unknown 
to  some  of  the  Westminster  divines,  teaches  that  the  num- 
ber of  six  days  was  assumed  not  as  a  mark  of  actual  time, 
but  as  a  manner  of  teaching  the  order  of  creation ;  while  in 
certain  commentaries  in  that  age,  attributed  to  the  Vener- 
able Bede,  and  largely  read  in  England,  though  now  deemed 
spurious,  a  similar  opinion  is  said  to  be  found.  The  figura- 
tive interpretation  therefore  of  the  six  days  of  creation  is 
no  make-shift  of  hard-pressed  theologians  in  the  nineteenth 
century.  It  was  held  by  respectable  scholars  and  divines, 
from  early  times,  and  was  known  to  the  framers  of  our  Con- 
fession ;  and  had  they  meant  deliberately  to  exclude  it,  they 
would  have  written,  not  six  days,  but  six  natural  or  literal 
days." — Dec.  2. 


A  Simple  Plain  Statement  of  How  I  Have  Understood 
Dr.  Woodrow. 

The  writer  has  been  a  close  and  interested  observer  of  all 
that  has  been  going  on  in  our  Church  for  the  last  two 
years  and  a  half,  growing  out  of  the  "Woodrow  trouble," 
but  never  before  this  written  one  line  for  publication. 

During  this  time  I  have  been  a  constant  reader  of  the 
Southern  Presbyterian  and  the  Christian  Observer,  and  I 
think  I  can  safely  say,  while  I  have  read  many  articles  that 
seemed  to  be  strange  productions  to  me,  yet  I  have  kept 
my  mind  free  from  charging  my  brethren  with  dishonesty 
or  impurity  of  motive.  True,  I  have  been  tempted  on  this 
line,  but  I  have  endeavored  to  accord  to  all,  that  which  I 
claim  for  myself,  the  right  of  private  judgment,  honesty  of 
conviction,  and  purity  of  motive. 

Were  I  competent  to  enter  into  an  argument  as  to  the 
merits  of  this  case,  I  would  not  do  so  now,  since  I  only 
desire  to  give  a  simple,  plain,  and  unvarnished  statement — 
avoiding  the  language  of  the  books — of  my  understanding  of 
this  whole  matter: 


862 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


1.  I  do  not  remember  ever  to  have  read,  in  anything 
written  by  Dr.  Woodrow,  nor  do  I  remember  ever  to  have 
heard  him  say,  that  "Adam  as  to  his  body  was  born  of  animal 
parentage."  I  know,  however,  that  he  has  been  charged 
with  this,  "times  and  ways  beyond  numbering,"  and  yet  I 
most  confidently  assert,  that  he  has  never  said  it. 

2.  What  has  he  said?  If  I  have  understood  him,  this  is 
what  he  has  said.  In  his  scientific  research  and  investiga- 
tion into  the  various  forms  of  animal  life,  now  existing  and 
such  as  have  existed  in  the  ages  past,  he  finds,  so  far  as  he 
has  been  able  to  go,  that  there  have  been  constant  changes 
in  these  forms.  Going  down  into  the  earth's  history,  as 
written  in  the  rocks,  the  forms  of  animal  life  were  different. 
To  begin  with  the  lowest,  as  found  down  deepest  in  the 
earth,  he  finds  certain  remains  of  animals  that  have  long 
since  been  extinct,  as  is  evidenced  by  their  absence  from 
the  more  recent  strata  or  layers.  But  as  he  comes  upward 
to  the  next  stratum,  he  finds  there  the  remains  of  animals 
that  are  of  a  different  and  higher  order  than  those  first  found. 
And  yet,  when  critically  examined,  they  are  found  in  many 
respects  closely  to  resemble  the  first,  and  then  these  forms 
disappear.  And  just  so,  he  tells  us  as  he  comes  all  the  way 
up  to  the  present,  he  finds  that  there  was  a  gradual  rising 
in  these  forms,  each  higher  and  more  complex  than  the 
lower;  and  yet  as  they  ascended,  the  differences  were  so 
small  between  each  lower  and  higher,  that  he  has  been  led 
to  entertain  the  belief  that  the  higher,  under  God,  sprang 
from  the  lower.  Observe,  he  does  not  say,  that  such  is  the 
fact — that  is,  that  the  higher  did  spring  from  the  lower — but 
inasmuch  as  the  resemblances  are  so  strikingly  manifest,  it 
seems  to  him  "more  probable"  that  God  brought  these 
different  forms  into  existence  by  evolving  the  higher  from 
the  lower,  than  that  he  created  one  form  at  one  time  and  let 
it  exist  for  a  time,  and  then  destroyed  it,  and  then  created, 
immediately,  another  form,  so  much  like  the  first,  and  have 
it  exist  for  a  time,  and  then  destroy  that  form,  and  then 
create  immediately  another,  and  so  on  and  on  to  the  present. 
He  tells  us,  most  emphatically,  that  it  is  no  "guess  work," 
about  finding  these  animal  forms  stored  away  in  the  earth, 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


863 


just  as  I  have  indicated,  but  that  such  is  a  fact,  and  yet  while 
that  is  a  fact,  he  does  not  say  that  evolution  was  God's 
method  of  creation,  but  that  it  seems  "probable." 

3.  After  he  became  impressed  that  such  was  "probably" 
God's  method  of  creation,  he  realised  at  once  that  if  it  was, 
then  it  would  very  naturally  involve  the  question  of  Adam's 
origin.  Hence — as  I  have  always  understood  him — he 
began  to  test  the  theory  by  the  word  of  God.  Not  reading 
the  theory  into  the  Bible,  but  studying  it  in  the  light  of  the 
Bible,  ready,  as  he  has  often  said  and  still  says,  to  renounce 
the  theory,  if  it  contradicts  the  word  of  God.  He  has  been 
honest  and  manly  enough  to  tell  us,  that  it  does  contradict 
his  former  understanding  of  the  word,  and  that  he  is  fully 
aware  of  the  fact  that  it  is  in  the  face  of  the  commonly 
accepted  theory;  yet  after  twenty-five  years'  close  study  it 
seems  "probable"  that  evolution,  as  defined  by  him,  was 
God's  method  of  creation.  After  testing,  trying,  and  weigh- 
ing the  theory  by  the  word  of  God,  he  tells  us  that  he  finds 
no  part  of  that  word,  not  a  syllable  or  letter,  that  we  will 
have  to  abandon,  if  it  ever  should  be  clearly  demonstrated 
that  such  was  God's  method  of  creation.  He  saw  where  the 
chief  trouble  lay,  and  that  was,  where  the  word  of  God  said, 
that  God  created  Adam  of  the  "dust  of  the  ground,"  and  he 
tells  us  that  these  words  will  bear  the  interpretation  that 
would  have  to  be  placed  upon  them,  if  it  should  ever  be 
demonstrated  that  evolution  was  God's  method  of  creation. 

I  have  never  understood  him  as  absolutely  adopting  the 
theory  of  evolution,  much  less  have  I  understood  him  as 
asking  the  Church  to  adopt  his  "probable"  theory,  but  as 
insisting  upon  the  Church  clinging  to  the  word  of  God,  and 
refusing  to  express  an  opinion  upon  a  question  that 
belonged  to  the  field  of  science. 

Looking  at,  and  understanding  this  whole  question,  just 
as  I  have  stated  it,  I  confess  that  I  have  viewed  the  action 
of  some  of  our  brethren,  and  some  of  our  church  courts  with 
the  supremest  astonishment  and  wonder.  How  they  have 
been  so  terribly  and  fearfully  frightened,  I  cannot  under- 
stand. It  may  be  that  I  ought  to  be  alarmed,  but  I  must 
confess — though  it  may  betray  my  ignorance — that  I  have 


864 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


never  been  the  least  frightened.  The  Lord  God  omnipotent 
reigneth,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  his 
Church.  J.  E.  Jones. 

The  above  statement  of  Professor  Woodrow's  views  he 
regards  as  exactly  correct  in  every  particular.  When  he 
reads  some  of  the  opinions  attributed  to  him  by  persons 
who  must  be  believed  to  be  honest  and  possessed  of  fair 
powers  of  understanding,  he  is  filled  with  amazement;  for 
he  knows  that  such  ideas  never  entered  his  mind.  He  some- 
times is  almost  led  to  believe  that  he  must  have  expressed 
his  opinions  with  such  a  want  of  clearness,  that  his  utter- 
ances could  not  be  understood;  but  from  time  to  time  he 
is  comforted  by  statements  like  the  above,  which  represent 
exactly  what  he  wished  to  say;  and  thus  he  becomes  con- 
vinced again  that  the  want  of  clearness  is  not  his,  and  that 
he  is  not  responsible  for  the  shocking  caricatures  attributed 
to  him  as  good  logical  inferences  from  what  he  has  said. — 
Dec.  p. 


Why  Are;  They  Not  Forthcoming? 

At  the  recent  meeting  of  the  Synod  of  Georgia,  during 
the  hearing  of  the  complaint  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Adams  against 
the  Presbytery  of  Augusta,  Dr.  Adams  read  certain  pas- 
sages from  Professor  Woodrow's  Address  on  Evolution 
respecting  the  earliest  stages  through  which  each  human 
body  passes  (p.  25)  and  the  order  in  which  animals  appeared 
on  the  earth  (p.  23),  and  held  them  up  as  proofs  of  Professor 
Woodrow's  anti-scriptural  teachings.  On  the  other  hand, 
Professor  Woodrow  emphatically  said  that  these  passages 
presented,  not  hypotheses  which  might  or  might  not  be  true, 
but  well-known  observed  facts,  which  were  so  recognised 
and  accepted  by  all  who  had  studied  such  subjects,  and  he 
expressed  his  surprise  that  this  was  not  known  to  every 
intelligent  person  who  would  venture  to  engage  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  such  matters.  In  reply  Dr.  Adams  asserted  that 
he  could  easily  produce  from  the  writings  of  scientific  men 
of  the  highest  reputation  proofs  that  they  were  not  accepted 
as  true.   When  requested  to  furnish  the  Synod  with  a  few 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


865 


of  these  proofs,  he  replied  that  he  would  not  then  take  up 
the  Synod's  time  with  them,  but  would  at  an  early  day  send 
them  to  the  Southern  Presbyterian  for  publication  in  that 
journal. 

As  we  do  not  wish  the  members  of  Synod  to  attribute 
the  non-appearance  of  Dr.  Adams's  promised  proofs  to  our 
negligence,  we  allude  to  the  matter  for  the  purpose  of  saying 
that  they  have  not  yet  reached  us.  Of  course,  we  have 
no  explanation  to  offer  for  the  non-fulfilment  of  the  promise 
up  to  this  time.  As  Dr.  Adams  so  confidently  stated  that 
he  would  produce  such  proofs,  he  must  at  least  have 
believed  that  he  was  in  possession  of  them.  We  patiently 
await  their  arrival. — Jan.  27,  1887. 


Letter  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wm.  Adams. 

Mr.  Editor:  An  article  in  your  paper  of  January  27th 
headed  "Why  are  they  not  forthcoming?"  contains  the  fol- 
lowing statement : 

"At  the  recent  meeting  of  the  Synod  of  Georgia,  during 
the  hearing  of  the  complaint  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Adams  against 
the  Presbytery  of  Augusta,  Dr.  Adams  read  certain  pas- 
sages from  Professor  Woodrow's  Address  on  Evolution 
respecting  the  earliest  stages  through  which  each  human 
body  passes  and  the  order  in  which  animals  appeared  on  the 
earth,  and  held  them  up  as  proofs  of  Prof.  W.'s  anti-scriptural 
teachings.  On  the  other  hand,  Prof.  Woodrow  emphat- 
ically said  that  these  passages  presented,  not  hypotheses 
which  might  or  might  not  be  true,  but  well  known  observed 
facts,  which  were  so  recognised  and  accepted  by  all  who 
studied  such  subjects,  and  he  expressed  his  surprise  that 
this  was  not  known  to  every  intelligent  person  who  would 
venture  to  engage  in  the  discussion  of  such  matters.  In 
reply  Dr.  Adams  asserted  that  he  could  easily  produce  from 
the  writings  of  scientific  men  of  the  highest  reputation, 
proofs  that  they  were  not  accepted  as  true.  When  requested 
to  furnish  the  Synod  with  a  few  of  these  proofs,  he  replied 
that  he  would  not  then  take  up  the  Synod's  time  with  them, 
but  would  at  an  early  day  send  them  to  the  Southern  Presby- 
terian for  publication  in  that  journal." 
55 — w 


866 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Now,  sir,  I  have  not  the  slightest  hesitation  in  character- 
ising that  entire  statement  as  a  glaring  misrepresentation 
of  what  I  said  in  the  Synod.  Fortunately  there^  were  pres- 
ent a  hundred  credible  witnesses,  and  if  one  of  them  will  say 
that  the  following  is  not  what  I  said,  I  will  withdraw  the 
above  statement  and  apologise  for  it. 

Dr.  Woodrow  in  replying  to  my  complaint  against  the 
Augusta  Presbytery  referred  to  the  positions  which  he  had 
taken  in  his  pamphlet  on  evolution  and  again  treated  us  to 
the  "early  forms"  and  the  "long  way  back"  to  which  we 
can  go  in  our  examinations  of  them,  and,  as  he  has  done  on 
every  occasion  on  which  I  have  heard  him,  expressed  him- 
self thus,  "I  know,  I  know,  I  know." 

It  occurred  to  me  that  I  would  ask  him  a  question,  and  I 
rose  and  did  so.  The  question  was  this,  "Do  I  understand 
you  to  tell  the  Synod  that  the  whole  question  of  the  geologi- 
cal epochs  and  of  the  antiquity  of  the  earth  is  settled?"  He 
said,  "I  do."  I  immediately  resumed  my  seat.  But  when 
the  opportunity  was  afforded  me  of  replying  to  his  argu- 
ment I  made  the  following  statement : 

"Dr.  Woodrow  has  told  us  that  the  whole  question  of 
the  earth's  antiquity,  or  what  is  known  as  the  typical 
periods  of  the  creation,  is  settled.  He  tells  us,  'I  know,  I 
know,  I  know/  as  if  there  were  not  a  question  or  a  doubt 
about  the  whole  subject,  so  that  geologists  were  at  last 
agreed  upon  it.  Now,  I  want  to  tell  Dr.  Woodrow  that 
geologists  are  as  far  apart  on  this  subject  as  heaven  is  from 
earth,  and  that  I  will  undertake  to  send  the  names  of  recog- 
nised geologists  who  take  the  position  that  the  Noachic 
flood  was  a  sufficient  vera  causa  for  the  fossilisation  of  the 
organic  remains." 

This  was  simply  what  I  said  as  I  have  no  doubt  the 
venerable  Dr.  Lane,  the  Moderator,  and  every  other  mem- 
ber of  the  Synod  will  affirm. 

I  never  undertook  to  send  "proofs"  "respecting  the  earliest 
stages  through  which  each  human  body  passes''  and 
respecting  "the  order  in  which  animals  appeared  on  the 
earth"  and  I  never  said  anything  about  producing  the 
writings  of  any  scientific  men  on  such  a  subject.    I  am  in 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


867 


a  position  to  make  good  my  promise,  as  Dr.  Woodrow  must 
very  well  know;  but  I  respectfully  decline  Dr.  Woodrow's 
bait  to  be  led  further  into  the  discussion  of  a  subject  which 
has  become  offensive  and  repugnant  to  myself  and  to  the 
entire  Church  to  which  we  both  belong. 

Wm.  Adams. 

Last  week  we  received  the  foregoing  characteristic  letter 
from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Adams,  of  Augusta,  Ga.,  and  we  now  pub- 
lish it,  as  we  promised  to  do. 

Overlooking  the  manner  of  this  letter,  we  would  say  that 
if  our  statement  two  weeks  ago  was  a  misrepresentation,  it 
was  unintentional — we  thought  it  was  correct.  And  we  are 
still  inclined  to  think  so,  notwithstanding  the  warm  denial. 
Even  from  Dr.  Adams's  denial  as  given  above,  it  is  obvious 
that  we  were  right.  As  he  puts  it,  "Dr.  Woodrow.  .  .  . 
again  treated  us  to  the  'early  forms'  and  the  'long  way  back' 
to  which  we  can  go  in  our  examinations  of  them,  and  .  .  . 
expressed  himself  thus,  'I  know,  I  know,  I  know.'  "  Hear- 
ing this  reiteration  it  occurred  to  Dr.  Adams,  as  he  tells  us, 
to  ask  a  question,  obviously  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that 
Dr.  Woodrow  did  not  know  what  he  asserted  so  positively  ; 
that  is,  of  course,  what  referred  to  the  "early  forms"  and 
"the  long  way  back,"  as  these  are  the  subjects  spoken  of  in 
the  passages  which  had  been  quoted  by  Dr.  Adams  and  were 
mentioned  by  Dr.  Woodrow. 

Should  any  further  proof  be  needed  to  show  that  we 
were  not  guilty  of  "misrepresentation,"  "glaring"  or  other- 
wise, it  may  be  found  by  referring  to  Dr.  Adams's  pamphlet 
edition  of  his  speech  before  Augusta  Presbytery,  which,  to  a 
considerable  extent,  formed  the  basis  of  his  speeches  before 
Synod.  On  pages  10  and  n  of  Dr.  Adams's  pamphlet, 
"Evolution  Errors,"  occur  the  following  passages : 

"Let  us  listen  now,  not  to  light  conjecture,  but  to  grave 
assertion.  On  page  23,  of  his  pamphlet,  we  have  the  follow- 
ing minute  statement : 

"  'We  cannot  go  back  to  the  beginning,  but  we  can  go 
a  long  way.  The  outline  thus  obtained  shows  us  that  all  the 
earlier  organic  beings  in  existence  through  an  immense 


868 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


period,  as  proved  by  an  immense  thickness  of  layers  resting 
on  each  other,  were  of  lower  forms,  with  not  one  as  high 
or  of  as  complex  an  organisation  as  the  fish;  then  the  fish 
appeared  and  remained  a  long  time  the  highest  being  on  the 
earth.  Then  followed  at  long  intervals  the  amphibian  or 
frog-like  animals,  the  reptile,  the  lowest  mammalian,  then 
gradually  the  higher  and  higher,  until  at  length  appeared 
man,  the  head  and  crown  of  creation.' 

"Permit  me  to  call  your  special  attention  at  once  to  the 
fact  that  the  thought  clearly  conveyed  in  this  paragraph  is 
that  the  same  mode  by  which  the  frog  was  evolved  from  the 
fish,  and  the  reptile  from  the  frog,  and  the  higher  mammal- 
ian from  the  lower,  is  that  by  which  man  was  evolved.  No 
divine  supernatural  intervention  is  suggested  by  the  defend- 
ant in  connexion  with  his  formation  any  more  than  is  sug- 
gested in  connexion  with  the  formation  of  any  of  the  lower 
animals.  Such  a  thing  is  not  hinted  at,  nor  apparently 
thought,  by  the  defendant.  The  same  laws  which  operate  in 
the  one  instance  operate  in  the  other;  if  the  fish  and  the 
frog  and  the  lower  and  the  higher  mammalian  were  evolved, 
man  was  evolved.  This  is  the  necessary  inference  from  the 
paragraph.  To  draw  any  other  is  to  confound  the  whole 
theory  of  evolution.  The  moment  you  bring  in  supernatural 
intervention,  you  destroy  evolution. 

"Defendant  states  this  as  a  certainty. 

"It  will  also  be  noticed  that  the  ideas  conveyed  in  the 
quotation  given  are  not  suggested  as  a  probability,  but  are 
stated  as  a  certainty. 

"Here,  then,  is  the  story  of  how  the  earth  with  its  present 
complex  character  came  into  existence,  and  here  is  traced 
the  growth  of  species — not  from  the  beginning,  but  a  long 
way  back — from  forms  not  as  high  or  as  complex  as  the  fish, 
then  to  the  fish  itself,  and  then  from  the  fish  to  the  frog,  and 
from  the  frog  to  something  else,  and  from  that  to  something 
else  still,  or,  to  use  his  own  words,  'higher  and  higher,  until 
at  length  appeared  man,  the  head  and  crown  of  creation.' 

"Now,  it  will  be  noticed  that  all  this  is  not  suggested  as 
a  probability,  but  is  stated  as  a  fact.  This  is  not  one  of 
the  things  which  is  probably  true,  but  is  positively  and  with- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


869 


out  any  qualification  stated  as  true,  and  the  thing  so  stated 
is  this :  that  the  material  out  of  which  man  descended,  was 
at  one  time  of  a  lower  form,  and  neither  as  high  nor  as  com- 
plex an  organisation  as  a  fish,  but  it  rose  finally  to  that  of  a 
fish ;  then  after  having  a  long  time  remained  a  fish  it  evolved 
into  a  frog,  and  then  into  other  forms,  higher  and  higher, 
until  man  was  born  the  head  and  crown,  but  still  the  off- 
spring, of  these  earlier  forms. 

"That  this  is  the  defendant's  meaning  is  plain  from  the 
following,  page  25,  of  the  same  pamphlet: 

"  'All  these  facts  are  just  such  as  the  doctrine  of  descent 
with  modification  would  lead  us  to  expect;  but  which  seem 
hard  to  understand  on  the  supposition  that  each  species  was 
independently  and  immediately  created.' 

"But  to  make  the  case  still  plainer,  if  it  can  be  plainer,  on 
the  same  page : 

"  'While  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  human  embryo  is  at 
one  point  an  invertebrate,  then  a  fish,  afterwards  a  reptile, 
a  mammalian  quadruped,  and  at  last  a  human  being,  yet  it  is 
true  that  it  has  at  one  period  the  invertebrate  structure, 
then  successively  in  a  greater  or  less  number  of  particulars, 
the  structure  of  the  fish,  the  reptile,  and  the  mammalian 
quadruped,  and  in  many  of  these  particulars  the  likeness 
is  strikingly  close.'  " 

Dr.  Adams  substantially  repeated  these  statements  and 
quotations  in  his  argument  before  the  Synod,  and  it  was 
with  reference  to  the  assertions  contained  in  the  quotations 
that  Dr.  Woodrow  found  it  needful  to  reiterate  the  "I  know, 
I  know,"  as  Dr.  Adams  has  it.  But  surely  no  more  can  be 
needed  on  this  point,  and  as  to  what  it  was  that  Dr.  Adams 
wished  to  show  Dr.  Woodrow  to  be  too  confident  about. 

As  we  have  introduced  these  extracts  from  Dr.  Adams's 
pamphlet,  it  seems  desirable  to  offer  a  comment  or  two 
respecting  them,  as  they  are  decidedly  typical.  The  state- 
ments which  Dr.  Adams  quotes  from  Dr.  Woodrow's 
Address  (with  the  exception  of  the  first  remark  quoted  from 
p.  25)  set  forth  simply  elementary  unquestionable  observed 
facts,  as  every  student  of  biology  and  geology  knows.  Yet 
Dr.  Adams  mistook  them  for  statements  of  the  doctrine  of 


870 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


evolution !  That  the  succession  of  facts  occurs  as  there  set 
forth,  no  one  who  knows  anything  of  the  subject  doubts. 
Between  the  intelligent  anti-evolutionist  and  the  intelligent 
evolutionist  there  is  no  controversy  on  that  point.  The 
difference  between  them  is  in  the  answer  to  the  questions, 
How  is  this  recognised  succession  to  be  explained?  Did 
God  create  the  different  successive  forms  immediately  and 
independently  of  each  other?  Or  did  he  create  them  by 
causing  the  later  to  be  derived  from  the  earlier?  The  anti- 
evolutionist  replies  that  they  were  created  independently; 
the  evolutionist  thinks  it  more  reasonable  to  believe  that  the 
later  were  created  by  derivation  from  the  earlier.  But  both 
agree  perfectly  as  to  the  facts  themselves;  there  is  no 
question  about  them.  And  yet  Dr.  Adams,  and  with  him 
apparently  the  large  majority  in  the  Georgia  Synod,  of 
whom  he  is  one  of  the  leaders,  cannot  distinguish  between 
facts  and  attempted  explanations  of  the  facts !  Alas  for  the 
truth,  if  it  is  to  be  settled  by  majorities  of  votes  when  the 
leaders  cannot  recognise  the  difference  between  the  merest 
elementary  admitted  facts  and  the  disputed  inferences  from 
them.  It  is  not  pleasant  to  point  out  these  things,  but  how 
else  can  the  truth  be  made  known? 

But  coming  back  to  Dr.  Adams's  letter,  and  accepting  his 
statement  as  to  his  intention,  we  again  request  him  to  fulfil 
his  promise,  and  "to  send  the  names  of  recognised  geologists 
who  take  the  position  that  the  Noachic  flood  was  a 
sufficient  vera  causa  for  the  fossilisation  of  organic  remains. " 
Dr.  Adams  does  not  fully  commit  himself  to  the  position  of 
the  "recognised  geologists"  whose  names  he  has  undertaken 
to  send,  but  he  must  at  least  regard  the  opinion  as  possibly 
well-founded,  as  having  some  reasons  in  its  favor,  as  not 
wholly  exploded,  or  he  would  not  refer  to  it  as  throwing 
doubt  on  the  geological  certainties  stated  by  Dr.  Wood- 
row — particularly  as  to  the  earth's  antiquity.  Geologists 
infer,  and  infer  with  certainty,  from  the  phenomena  pre- 
sented by  the  layers  composing  the  crust  of  the  earth  and 
the  fossils  which  they  contain,  that  the  earth  is  of  great 
antiquity,  that  it  was  inhabited  by  various  kinds  of  animals 
different  from  the  kinds  now  existing,  for  hundreds  of  thou- 


*■ 


HIS  TEACHINGS.  871 

sands  and  even  millions  of  years  before  God  created  man. 
On  this  point  there  is  not  the  least  difference  of  opinion 
amongst  geologists.  There  may  be  and  there  is  great  differ- 
ence of  opinion  amongst  them  as  to  how  many  millions  of 
years  the  earth  may  have  been  in  existence;  but  none  that 
it  has  existed  for  millions.  And  further  no  "recognised 
geologist" — no  one  whose  opinion  on  this  point  would  have 
the  least  weight  in  the  scientific  world — would  admit  for  a 
moment  as  a  possibility  that  the  layers  constituting  the 
crust  of  the  earth  with  their  fossils  could  have  been  depos- 
ited by  the  Noachic  Deluge — a  flood  which  lasted  for  a 
single  year.  Now,  Dr.  Adams  has  undertaken  to  disprove 
these  assertions.  We  eagerly  wait  for  the  fulfilment  of  his 
promise;  for  if  we  are  wrong,  we  wish  to  know  it  as  soon 
as  possible  so  that  we  may  abandon  our  errors. 

Dr.  Adams  says,  "Dr.  Woodrow  must  very  well  know" 
that  he  (Dr.  Adams)  is  "in  a  position  to  make  good  his 
promise."  Thus  appealed  to,  Dr.  Woodrow  is  obliged 
frankly  to  confess  that  he  does  not  know  it  very  well,  indeed 
that  he  does  not  know  it  at  all ;  on  the  contrary,  he  thinks  he 
knows  exactly  the  reverse.  Of  course,  he  knows  that  there 
are  those  for  whose  Christian  character  and  for  whose  learn- 
ing in  certain  directions  he  has  the  profoundest  respect,  who 
can  be  named  as  rejecting  the  doctrine  of  the  antiquity  of 
the  earth.  He  remembers  an  avowal  to  this  effect  by  a 
ruling  elder  of  the  Augusta  First  church  before  the  Presby- 
tery at  Waynesboro;  he  remembers  the  laughing  but 
seriously  meant  speech  against  geology  made  by  one  of  Dr. 
Adams's  fellow-leaders  of  the  Synod  of  Georgia  at  Marietta ; 
he  knows  the  views  of  ministers  in  the  Synod  of  Virginia, 
and  at  least  one  of  the  Professors  in  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  and  presumably  many  of  his  former  pupils  may 
believe  with  him,  not  to  speak  of  others ;  but  these  are  not 
"recognised  geologists";  indeed,  they  probably  would 
stoutly  spurn  such  a  title  with  holy  horror;  therefore  they 
are  not  referred  to  in  Dr.  Adams's  promise.  Then  we  know, 
as  stated  in  an  article  on  our  fourth  page  to-day,  that 
Luther,  who  was  not  a  geologist,  thought  so,  and  that  Ges- 
ner,    Colonna,    Woodward,    Scilla,    Scheuchzer,  Burnet, 


872  DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 

Whiston,  Mylius,  Briickmann,  and  DeLuc  could  be  named 
as  agreeing  with  him ;  but  we  hardly  suppose  Dr.  Adams 
refers  to  these  any  more  than  he  would  refer  to  Ptolemy, 
Tycho  Brahe,  Horky,  or  Sizzi,  if  the  opinions  of  "recog- 
nised astronomers"  touching  the  Copernican  System  were 
under  examination. 

The  immediate  question  we  have  now  been  discussing 
may  be  of  slight  importance  in  itself;  but  when  regarded 
as  part  of  the  great  question  of  the  attitude  of  the  Church 
of  Christ  towards  science,  it  is  seen  to  be  of  the  greatest 
importance,  and  that  it  deserves  the  most  careful  consid- 
eration. 

Our  object  is  not  to  tempt  Dr.  Adams  into  a  discussion 
by  any  "bait,"  as  he  intimates ;  but  solely  to  secure  an  early 
fulfilment  of  a  promise  which  he  made  at  Sparta.  He  must 
interpret  the  promise  as  he  remembers  it;  but  it  certainly 
was  that  he  would  send  us  something  about  something,  and 
we  have  not  yet  received  anything ;  and  we  have  too  much 
confidence  in  him  to  think  for  a  moment  he  will  violate  a 
promise  voluntarily  made. — Feb.  10. 


Recognised  Geologists. 

Letter  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Adams. 

Mr.  Editor:  I  had  hoped  that  the  reason  for  the  delay  in 
publishing  my  letter  of  January  30th,  was  that  Dr.  Wood- 
row  was  corresponding  with  some  of  the  members  of  the 
Synod  of  Georgia  in  order  to  confirm  or  otherwise  his  ver- 
sion of  my  speech  before  that  body.  I  confess  I  am  sur- 
prised and  disappointed  that  the  results  are  not  candidly 
stated,  that  is  if  the  inquiries  have  been  made.  But  what 
surprises  me  far  more  than  this,  is  your  broad  assertion 
that  Dr.  Woodrow's  version  and  my  own  version  of  what  I 
said  in  the  Synod  are  one  and  the  same  thing.  Dr.  Wood- 
row  says : 

"Dr.  Adams  read  certain  passages  from  Professor  Wood- 
row's  Address  on  Evolution  respecting  the  earliest  stages 
through  which  each  human  body  passes,  and  the  order  in 
which  animals  appeared  on  the  earth,  and  in  reply  to 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


873 


Professor  Woodrow  said  that  he  could  easily  produce  from 
the  writings  of  scientific  men  of  the  highest  reputation 
proofs  that  they  were  not  accepted  as  true." 

On  the  other  hand,  I  claim  that  what  I  said  was  "that 
geologists  are  as  far  apart  as  heaven  is  from  earth  on  the 
subject  of  geological  epochs  and  of  the  antiquity  of  the 
earth,  and  I  will  undertake  to  send  the  names  of  recognised 
geologists  who  take  the  position  that  the  Noachic  flood 
was  a  sufficient  vera  causa  for  the  fossilisation  of  the  organic 
remains."  I  leave  your  readers  to  judge  if  these  two  state- 
ments are  one  and  the  same  thing,  and  that  is  all  I  need  to 
say  upon  the  subject. 

Now,  with  respect  to  the  promise  I  made  in  the  Synod, 
I  have  the  greatest  pleasure  in  giving  Dr.  Woodrow  the 
following  information  inasmuch  as  he  acknowledges  his 
ignorance  upon  the  subject.  I  only  ask,  however,  that  he 
will  not  try  to  fasten  upon  me  the  views  and  theories  of 
others.  My  object  is  just  to  prove  what  I  stated  to  the 
Synod :  namely,  that  there  is  division  in  the  camp  of  geolo- 
gists, and  that  Dr.  Woodrow  was  mistaken  when  he 
affirmed  that  this  was  a  settled  question. 

First,  let  me  introduce  to  you,  Mr.  Editor,  the  name  of 
Philip  Henry  Gosse,  a  Fellow  of  the  Royal  Society,  and 
the  author  of  a  number  of  books  on  zoology,  etc.  The  work 
to  which  I  call  your  attention  is  his  Omphalos,  "an  attempt 
To  untie  the  geological  knot."  His  book  is  a  treatise  on 
what  he  calls  "The  Law  of  Prochronism  in  Creation."  Per- 
mit me  now  to  give  you  one  or  two  extracts.  On  page 
4  he  says :  "It  will  not  be  denied  that  geology  is  a  science 
that  stands  peculiarly  in  need  of  being  cultivated  with  salu- 
tary self-distrust.  ...  I  am  not  assuming  that  the  inspired 
word  has  been  rightly  read.  I  merely  say  that  the  plain 
straight-forward  meaning  that  lies  manifestly  on  the  face 
of  the  passage  in  question  (Gen.  ist  chapter)  is  in  opposi- 
tion with  the  conclusions  which  certain  geologists  (Hugh 
Miller  and  others  of  the  same  school)  have  formed  as  to 
the  antiquity  and  genesis  of  the  globe  on  which  we  live. 
Many  of  the  upright  and  ardent  cultivators  of  the  young 
science  felt  that  truth  would  be  compromised  by  persistence 


874 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


in  those  explanations  which  passed  current.  The  discre- 
pancy between  the  readings  in  science  and  the  hitherto 
unchallenged  readings  in  Scripture  became  manifest.  Par- 
tisans began  to  array  themselves  on  either  side.  Some,  jeal- 
ous for  the  honor  of  God,  knew  little  of  science  and  rushed 
into  the  field  ill-prepared  for  the  conflict.  Some,  jealous  for 
science,  but  little  conversant  with  Scripture  and  caring  less 
for  it,  were  willing  to  throw  overboard  its  authority  alto- 
gether. Others  who  knew  that  the  writings  were  from  the 
same  hand,  knew  therefore  that  there  must  be  some  way  of 
reconciling  them  and  set  themselves  to  find  it  out.  Have 
they  succeeded?  //  /  thought  so,  I  would  not  publish  this 
book." 

The  following  is  his  summary  of  his  argument : 

I.  The  conclusions  hitherto  received  have  been  but  infer- 
ences deducted  from  certain  premises.  The  witness  who 
reveals  the  premises  does  not  testify  to  the  inference. 

II.  The  process  of  deducting  the  inferences  has  been 
liable  to  a  vast  incoming  of  error,  arising  from  the  operation 
of  a  law  proved  to  exist,  but  hitherto  unrecognised. 

III.  The  amount  of  error  thus  produced  we  have  no 
means  of  knowing,  much  less  of  eliminating  it. 

IV.  The  whole  of  the  facts  deposed  to  by  this  witness 
are  irrelevant  to  the  question,  and  the  witness  is  therefore 
out  of  court. 

V.  The  field  is  clear  and  undisputed  for  the  one  witness 
on  the  opposite  side,  whose  testimony  is  as  follows : 

In  six  days  Jehovah  made  heaven  and  earth,  the  sea 
and  au,  that  in  them  is. 

The  next  name  I  give  is  that  of  the  Rev.  J.  Mellor  Brown, 
author  of  "Reflections  on  Geology/'  This  learned  clergyman 
represents  altogether  a  different  school  of  geologists  from 
that  of  Philip  Henry  Gosse.  Mr.  Brown  accounts  for  the 
creation  six  thousand  years  ago  in  the  following  manner : 

"God's  most  stupendous  agencies  may  have  been  em- 
ployed in  the  beginning  of  his  works.  If,  for  instance,  it 
should  be  conceded  that  the  granitic  or  basaltic  strata  were 
once  in  a  state  of  fusion,  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should 
not  call  in  the  aid  of  supposition  to  produce  rapid  refriger- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


875 


ation.  We  may  surround  the  globe  with  an  atmosphere 
(not  as  yet  warmed  by  the  rays  of  the  newly  kindled  sun) 
more  intensely  cold  than  that  of  Saturn.  The  degree  of 
cold  may  have  been  such  as  to  cool  down  the  liquid  granite 
and  basalt  in  a  few  hours  and  render  it  congenial  to  animal 
and  vegetable  life,  while  the  gelid  air  around  the  globe  may 
have  been  mollified  by  the  abstracted  caloric." 

The  same  theory  is  maintained  in  Blackwood,  41,  page 
181,  and  42,  page  690.  The  writer  literally  adheres  to  Gen- 
esis and  to  the  story  of  the  deluge,  and  refers  to  the  great 
agencies,  the  magnetic,  electrical,  and  etherial  influences 
probably  instrumental  in  the  phenomena  of  nature. 

Another  name,  Mr.  McBriar,  the  author  of  "Geology  and 
Geologists,"  holds  the  opinion  that  stratification  proceeded 
with  immense  rapidity  and  points  to  the  fact  that  limestone 
is  now  formed  in  some  waters  at  the  rate  of  six  inches  per 
annum.  And  he  distinctly  states  that  a  coal  field  might 
be  formed  in  a  single  century;  that  alluvial  strata  are  ejected 
lavas  from  volcanoes. 

Dr.  Ure,  author  of  "The  New  System  of  Geology,"  says : 
"The  demiurgic  week.  ...  is  manifestly  composed  of  six 
working  days,  like  our  own,  and  a  day  of  rest,  each  of  equal 
length,  and  therefore  containing  an  evening  and  a  morning, 
measured  by  the  rotation  of  the  earth  around  its  axis.  .  .  . 
Neither  reason  nor  revelation  will  justify  us  in  extending 
the  origin  of  the  material  system  beyond  six  thousand 
years."  Dr.  Ure  then  goes  on  to  account  for  stratification, 
which  he  claims  extended  over  the  whole  antediluvian  era. 

Granville  Penn,  author  of  "Mineral  and  Mosaic  Geolo- 
gies," pronounced  to  be  "one  of  the  most  eminent  writers 
of  this  school,"  supposes  that  this  globe  has  only  undergone 
two  revolutions.  The  first  was  the  violent  rupture  and 
depression  of  the  surface  to  become  the  bed  of  the  sea,  and 
the  second  the  Noachic  flood,  when  the  former  bed  of  the 
sea  was  elevated  to  become  dry  land  with  its  organic  accumula- 
tions of  sixteen  centuries. 

Mr.  Fairholme,  author  of  "The  Geology  of  Scripture," 
holds  precisely  the  same  opinion. 


876 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


And  now  to  the  literal  fulfilment  of  my  promise,  I  give 
Dr.  Woodrow  the  names  of  Dr.  Young,  the  author  of 
"Scriptural  Geology,"  and  the  Rev.  Sir  William  Cockburn, 
late  Dean  of  York,  in  his  letters  to  Buckland,  15  et  seq. 
"These,"  says  Gosse,  "have  maintained  with  considerable 
power,  backed  by  no  mean  geological  knowledge,  that  the 
deluge  is  a  sufficient  vera  causa  for  the  stratification  of  the 
globe  and  for  the  fossilisation  of  the  organic  remains." 
Dr.  Young  supposes  that  an  equable  climate  prevailed  all 
over  the  globe  in  the  antediluvian  period.  He  says,  "Were 
the  highest  mountains  transferred  to  the  equatorial  regions, 
the  most  extensive  oceans  removed  towards  the  poles  and 
fringed  with  a  border  of  archipelago,  while  lands  of 
moderate  height  occupied  most  of  the  intermediate  spaces 
between  these  archipelagoes  and  the  equatorial  mountains, 
then  a  temperature  almost  uniform  would  prevail  through- 
out the  world.  This  perpetual  summer  would  account  for 
the  prodigious  quantities  of  animal  and  vegetable  remains. 
Every  region  teemed  with  life." 

At  the  flood  "the  bed  of  the  ocean  must  have  been  ele- 
vated and  the  dry  land  at  the  same  time  depressed."  "To 
this  agency,"  says  Gosse,  "are  attributed  by  Dr.  Young  the 
vast  masses  of  granite,  gneiss,  basalt,  and  other  rock  of 
igneous  origin  which  seem  to  have  been  forced  upwards  in 
a  state  of  fusion  into  their  present  lofty  stations.  The 
ancient  bed  of  the  ocean  may  have  consisted  of  numerous 
layers  of  sand,  clay,  lime,  and  other  substances  including 
coals  and  marine  shells — to  a  certain  degree  consolidated 
into  rocks.  By  the  progressive  rising  of  waters  and  the 
currents  so  made,  fresh  material  would  be  conveyed  to  the 
depths  of  ocean  so  that  the  magnesian  limestone,  the  salifer- 
ous  beds,  the  lias,  etc.,  would  be  deposited." 

The  Dean  of  York  in  like  manner  considers  that  the  con- 
vulsions produced  by  the  deluge  are  sufficient  to  account  for 
all  the  stratification  and  fossil  remains.  He  takes  the 
ground  "that  the  gradual  rise  of  the  waters  and  their  pene- 
tration into  the  rocks  would  cause  successive  volcanic  erup- 
tions, the  earlier  of  which  would  enclose  marine  fishes  and 
reptiles.    Then  others  in  turn  the  pachyderms  and  great 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


877 


reptiles  of  the  plains,  and  finally  the  creatures  much  more 
exclusively  terrestrial.  That  these  repeated  heavings  of 
mighty  volcanoes  raised  a  great  part  of  what  had  been  the 
bottom  of  the  sea  above  its  level,  and  that  hence  the  present 
land  had  been  for  sixteen  centuries  under  water.  That 
the  animals  which  entered  the  ark  were  not  selected  till  after 
many  species  had  already  perished  in  the  earlier  convul- 
sions, and  hence  the  number  of  extinct  species  now 
exhumed. " 

Would  Dr.  Woodrow  desire  any  further  evidence  that 
geology  has  not  yet  settled  this  question?  If  so,  I  shall  be 
happy  to  supply  it.  I  shall  also  be  glad  to  call  attention  to 
that  school  represented  by  the  author  of  the  "Vestiges  of 
Natural  History  of  Creation,"  in  which  the  theory  of  organic 
origin  is  propounded  and  the  scheme  is  hatched  by  which 
the  immediate  ancestor  of  Adam  was  a  chimpanzee  and  his 
remote  ancestor  a  maggot.  Wm.  Adams. 

We  are  glad  to  publish  the  above  instructive  letter, 
which  Dr.  Adams  has  so  promptly  sent  in  response  to  our 
second  invitation. 

In  commenting  on  it,  we  need  hardly  state  that  we  have 
nothing  to  say  in  reply  to  Dr.  Adams's  first  paragraph. 

It  turns  out,  as  Dr.  Adams  shows  us,  that  his  promise  at 
Synod,  as  he  remembers  it,  was  mainly  a  quotation  from 
that  amusing  work  published  in  1857  by  P.  H.  Gosse, 
"Omphalos,  an  Attempt  to  Untie  the  Gordian  Knot."  And 
he  seems  to  rely  chiefly,  if  not  altogether,  on  the  same 
authority  for  the  names  of  his  "recognised  geologists." 

Here  is  the  list  of 

DR.  ADAMS'S  "RECOGNISED  GEOLOGISTS." 

Philip  Henry  Gosse. 

Rev.  J.  Mellor  Brown. 

Mr.  McBriar. 

Dr.  Ure. 

Granville  Penn. 

Mr.  Fairholme. 

Dr.  Young. 

Rev.  Sir  W.  Cockburn. 


878 


DR.  J  AMDS  WOODROW. 


"Recognised"  as  "geologists"  by  whom?  Mr.  Gosse 
attributes  "no  mean  geological  knowledge"  to  two  of  them ; 
Dr.  Adams  is  sponsor  for  all.  With  the  exception  of  Dr. 
Ure  in  certain  particulars,  no  geologist  could  possibly  unite 
in  the  recognition.  Indeed,  the  quotations  given  in  the 
above  letter  show  clearly  that  they  were  not  "geologists," 
but  writers  who  strove  to  prove  that  geology  contradicts 
the  Sacred  Scriptures  and  is  therefore  false.  If  one  becomes 
a  geologist  by  writing  against  geology,  then  the  eight 
writers  named  are  entitled  to  the  rank  assigned  them  by  Dr. 
Adams ;  otherwise  they  are  not.  The  truth  is,  that  they  are 
recognised  geologists  in  the  same  sense  in  which  Paine, 
Strauss,  Renan,  and  Ingersoll  are  recognised  Christian 
writers,  and  in  no  other. 

We  wish  to  examine  Dr.  Adams's  list,  to  state  wherein  we 
regard  his  letter  as  instructive,  and  to  make  a  few  other 
remarks  respecting  it ;  but  we  find  we  have  not  room  to-day 
to  say  what  we  desire ;  hence  we  must  wait  until  next  week. 
— Feb.  27. 


Dr.  Adams's  "Recognised  Geologists." 

Last  week  we  published  a  letter  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wm. 
Adams,  of  Augusta,  in  which  he  claims  that  he  fulfils  the 
promise  made  in  the  words,  "I  will  undertake  to  send  the 
names  of  recognised  geologists  who  take  the  position  that 
the  Noachic  flood  was  a  sufficient  vera  causa  for  the  fossilisa- 
tion  of  the  organic  remains" ;  that  he  proves  that  there  is  a 
"division  in  the  camp  of  geologists"  [respecting  the 
antiquity  of  the  earth]  ;  "and  that  Dr.  Woodrow  was  mis- 
taken when  he  affirmed  that  this  was  a  settled  question." 
We  made  a  few  comments  on  his  letter;  but,  as  we  inti- 
mated, it  seemed  desirable  to  examine  his  statements  a  little 
more  fully. 

Before  giving  the  promised  names  he  says:  "I  only  ask 
that  he  will  not  try  to  fasten  upon  me  the  views  and  theories 
of  others."  But,  as  we  said  two  weeks  ago,  while  he  "does 
not  fully  commit  himself  to  the  position  of  the  'recognised 
geologists'  whose  names  he  has"  sent,  "he  must  at  least 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


879 


regard  the  opinion  as  possibly  well  founded,  as  having  some 
reasons  in  its  favor,  as  not  wholly  exploded,  or  he  would  not 
refer  to  it  as  throwing  doubt  on  the  geological  certainties 
stated  by  Dr.  Woodrow — particularly  as  to  the  earth's 
antiquity."  Dr.  Adams  could  not  have  spoken  and  written 
on  this  point  as  he  has  done  with  proper  self-respect  and 
with  proper  respect  towards  those  whom  he  has  been 
addressing,  unless  he  regards  the  antiquity  of  the  earth  as 
not  proved,  as  not  a  thing  that  is  known.  He  plainly 
regards  the  question  as  an  open  one;  and  while  not  com- 
mitting himself  to  the  notions  of  his  "recognised  geolo- 
gists," he  evidently  looks  upon  them  with  complacency. 
We  may  hereafter  quote  his  scientific  views  as  uttered  from 
the  pulpit  and  published  in  newspapers,  but  shall  not  do  so 
now. 

The  two  assertions  which  Dr.  Adams  makes  and  for 
which  he  is  responsible  are — 

I.  That  the  eight  persons  whom  he  names  are  "recognised 
geologists." 

II.  That  these  "recognised  geologists"  "take  the  position 
that  the  Noachic  flood  was  a  sufficient  vera  causa  for  the 
fossilisation  of  the  organic  remains." 

Let  us  examine  these  assertions. 

As  stated  in  his  letter  published  last  week,  the  following 
are 

DR.  ADAMS' S  RECOGNISED  GEOLOGISTS. 

Philip  Henry  Gosse. 
Rev.  J.  Mellor  Brown. 
Mr.  Macbriar. 
Dr.  Ure. 
Granville  Penn. 
Mr.  Fairholme. 
Dr.  Young. 

Rev.  Sir  W.  Cockburn. 

i.  We  begin  with  the  most  ancient  of  them,  Granville 
Penn,  who  was  born  in  1761,  and  was  the  grandson  of  the 
founder  of  Pennsylvania.  He  wrote  a  number  of  works  on 
the  Bible  as  well  as  on  other  subjects;  and  in  1822  he  pub- 
lished his   "Comparative   Estimate   of  the   Mineral  and 


880 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Mosaical  Geologies,"  and  a  second  edition  of  the  same 
in  1825.  By  "Mineral  Geology"  he  understands  Geology  in 
the  usual  sense  of  the  word;  by  "Mosaical  Geology"  he 
means  a  supposed  science  for  which  he  thinks  he  finds  the 
basis  in  the  Bible.  He  everywhere  confounds  Geology  with 
Cosmogony,  supposing  that  it  is  the  aim  of  Geology  to 
determine  the  "general  law  of  first  formations"  (Vol.  1,  p. 
85).  He  is  not  aware  of  the  fact  that  "first  formations"  of 
every  kind  lie  beyond  the  limits  of  natural  science.  All 
that  we  can  know  of  "first  formations"  or  "first  origins" 
must  be  made  known  to  us  by  the  Almighty  Personal 
Creator;  we  are,  and  in  this  life  must  remain,  ignorant  of 
everything  concerning  these  that  he  does  not  reveal  to  us 
in  his  word.  Denying  the  possibility  of  determining  the 
"general  law  of  first  formations"  from  an  examination  of 
existing  phenomena,  Mr.  Penn  thinks  he  is  denying  the 
possibility  of  the  existence  of  geology.  Therefore  after 
making  his  "Comparative  Estimate"  he  pronounces  "min- 
eral Geology  a  spurious  and  baseless  science."  (Vol.  1,  p. 
141.) 

And  yet  Mr.  Penn  is  recognised  as  a  geologist  by  Dr. 
Adams ! 

2.  Mr.  George  Fairholme  owes  his  reputation  as  a  "geolo- 
gist," if  he  has  any,  to  a  work  entitled  the  "Geology  of 
Scripture,"  two  editions  of  which  he  published  between 
fifty  and  sixty  years  since.  Mr.  Fairholme's  object,  like  Mr. 
Penn's,  was  to  prove  that  there  is  a  Geology  of  Scripture, 
and  that  it  shows  that  what  is  usually  known  as  geology 
contradicts  this  "Geology  of  Scripture,"  and  is  therefore 
false. 

3.  Dr.  Young — the  Rev.  Dr.  George  Young  of  Whitby, 
England — about  fifty  years  ago  published  a  work  entitled 
"Scriptural  Geology."  Seventy  years  ago  he  wrote  a  "His- 
tory of  Whitby,"  and  fifty-nine  years  ago  a  "Geological  Sur- 
vey of  the  Yorkshire  Coast."  These  works  show  that  he 
was  acquainted  with  some  of  the  geological  phenomena  of 
that  region;  and  therefore  he  might  be  supposed  to  have 
some  knowledge  of  geology  as  a  science.  But  his  "Scriptural 
Geology"    shows    this    supposition    to    be    incorrect.  For 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


881 


example,  speaking  of  the  "secondary  strata,"  he  says : 
"Fishes,  zoophytes,  ammonites,  belemnites,  terebratulae, 
etc.,  occur  in  almost  every  portion  of  them;  but  those  in 
the  inferior  strata  have  as  much  similarity  to  the  living 
races  as  those  in  the  superior."  Elsewhere  speaking  of 
the  entire  series  of  the  fossil-bearing  strata  he  says :  "The 
general  conformity  of  the  strata  and  their  undisturbed  suc- 
cession indicate  that  they  must  have  been  deposited  about 
the  same  era." 

It  need  hardly  be  said  that  no  geologist  could  make  these 
assertions. 

4.  The  Rev.  J.  Mellor  Brown  is  another  of  Dr.  Adams's 
"recognised  geologists."  Nearly  fifty  years  ago  Mr.  Brown 
published  a  violent  attack  upon  geology,  entitled  "Reflec- 
tions on  Geology,  suggested  by  the  Perusal  of  Dr.  Buck- 
land's  Bridgewater  Treatise,"  etc.  In  this  work  he  urges 
that  geological  investigations  are  "dangerous  and  disreputa- 
ble" ;  "that  events  which  took  place  before  the  birth  of  man, 
or  the  date  of  revelation,  belong  to  a  forbidden  province." 
He  further  says  "that  Almighty  God  may,  by  the  mere  fiat 
of  his  power,  have  intentionally  brought  every  rock  and 
stratum,  every  fossil  leaf  and  shell  and  bone,  into  its  present 
form  and  condition."  And  yet  Dr.  Adams  would  have  us 
regard  Mr.  Brown  also  as  a  "geologist"! 

5.  About  the  same  time  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wm.  Cockburn, 
Dean  of  York,  established  his  claims  as  a  geologist  by  pub- 
lishing "A  Letter  to  Professor  Buckland,"  in  which  he 
attacks  Geology  violently  and  the  Geologist  Buckland  viru- 
lently. We  wonder  what  he  would  have  thought  if  he  had 
known  that  half  a  century  later  he  was  to  be  held  up  to  the 
gaze  of  mankind  as  himself  a  geologist ! 

6.  Still  descending  the  stream  of  time,  four  or  five  years, 
we  come  to  the  Rev.  Robert  Maxwell  Macbrair  (Mr.  Mac- 
briar  Dr.  Adams  writes  it),  who  in  1843  published  "Geology 
and  Geologists:  or,  Visions  of  Philosophers  in  the  Nine- 
teenth Century."  The  title  of  his  book  might  be  enough  to 
show  whether  or  not  the  author  is  a  geologist ;  but  to  render 
it  more  certain,  a  quotation  or  two  may  not  be  amiss.  On 
page  62  he  says:  "We  have  thus  examined  Geology  upon 


56— av 


882 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


its  own  merits,  and  having  weighed  each  system  in  the  bal- 
ance of  reason,  we  have  found  it  'wanting'/'  On  page  83, 
after  describing  Geology  as  he  understands  it,  he  says : 
"Whilst  reason  laughs  at  her  folly,  and  religion  frowns  upon 
her  madness,  we  must  treat  her  as  the  shapeless  offspring 
of  an  airy  fancy,  or  the  untoward  child  of  unholy  presump- 
tion."  And  yet  Mr.  Macbrair,  too,  is  a  geologist ! 

7.  The  last  to  be  mentioned  in  this  series  is  Philip  Henry 
Gosse,  a  well-known  zoologist,  who  was  born  in  1806.  When 
it  is  said  that  he  is  a  zoologist,  not  a  few  persons  no  doubt 
think  that  he  is  thereby  recognised  as  a  geologist  as  well. 
We  remember  we  once  asked  a  venerable  President  of  a 
College  Board  of  Trustees  what  evidences  the  Board  had 
of  the  special  fitness  of  a  gentleman  it  had  recently  elected 
Professor  of  Natural  Philosophy.  "Why,"  he  replied,  "we 
were  told  he  had  the  finest  collection  of  fishes  in  America." 
But  to  learn  that  such  reasoning  is  not  always  conclusive, 
it  is  only  necessary  to  read  Mr.  Gosse's  "Omphalos,  an 
Attempt  to  Untie  the  Gordian  Knot,"  which  he  published 
in  1857.  We  do  not  intend  to  explain  the  title;  but  it  is 
easy  to  see  that  the  author  intends  not  to  teach  geology,  but 
to  combat  it.  It  may  truthfully  be  said  of  him,  as  was  said 
long  ago  of  another  anti-geological  zoologist,  "Having  wan- 
dered out  of  his  proper  province,  he  has  introduced  some  of 
the  wildest  speculations  upon  geological  subjects  that  ever 
germinated  in  the  brain  of  man." 

From  the  foregoing  examination  it  is  evident  that  seven 
of  the  eight  persons  named  by  Dr.  Adams  are  not  "recog- 
nised geologists,"  and  as  we  said  last  week,  that  they  have 
no  more  right  to  be  so  regarded  than  Paine,  Strauss,  Renan, 
and  Ingersoll  have  to  be  regarded  as  Christian  writers. 

Coming  now  to  Dr.  Andrew  Ure,  we  claim  that  he  must 
be  looked  upon  as  a  respectable  geologist,  to  a  certain 
extent,  for  the  day  in  which  he  lived.  He  was  born  in  1778, 
and  published  a  "New  System  of  Geology"  in  1829.  A  large 
part  of  this  work  is  devoted  to  the  discussion  of  the  hypothe- 
ses which  characterised  the  mythical  period  of  geology 
before  it  existed  as  a  science,  and  the  reconciliation  of 
"Modern  Science  and  Sacred  History."    The  volume  is 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


883 


divided  into  three  Books :  "I.  The  Primordial  World,  or 
Creation."  "II.  The  Antediluvian  Period,  or  Secondary 
Formations."  "III.  The  Deluge."  To  this  last  Book  266 
pages — from  350  to  616 — are  devoted.  Students  of  geology 
to-day  may  be  inclined  to  smile  at  such  divisions  in  a 
treatise  on  geology;  but  it  must  be  remembered  that  this 
science  as  a  science  was  then  in  its  infancy.  And  Dr.  Ure 
fairly  presents  many  geological  facts  of  great  importance. 
Hence  we  may  rightly  say  that,  considering  the  time  when 
he  wrote,  he  may  be  termed  a  "geologist,"  "recognised"  as 
such  two  generations  ago.  We  would  not  be  exactly  ready 
to  accept  all  his  statements  as  accurate;  we  do  not  think 
even  Dr.  Adams  would.  Not  to  give  examples  referring  to 
unfamiliar  things,  we  quote  the  following.  He  says,  page 
163,  speaking  of  anthracite :  "Carbonaceous  matter  of  this 
kind  can  never  be  profitably  worked,"  etc.  Dr.  Adams  is 
doubtless  daily  disproving  this  statement  in  his  grates.  On 
page  510,  Dr.  Ure  says:  "Whoever  at  the  present  day  sees 
the  print  of  a  cloven  foot,  may  safely  conclude  that  the  ani- 
mal which  left  that  impression,  chews  the  cud ;  a  conclusion 
as  certain  indeed  as  any  in  physical  or  moral  science."  We 
wonder  if  he  ever  read  Lev.  11:7,  "And  the  swine,  though 
he  divide  the  hoof,  and  be  cloven-footed,  yet  he  cheweth  not 
the  cud ;"  or  if  he  ever  saw  a  pig's  track ! 

But  recognising  Dr.  Ure's  claim  to  be  a  geologist,  such  as  it 
is,  Dr.  Adams  disproves  his  own  statement  that  all  the  persons 
he  names  "take  the  position  that  the  Noachic  flood  was  a  suffi- 
cient vera  causa  for  the  fossilisation  of  the  organic  remains" ; 
for  he  tells  us  that  "Dr.  Ure  then  goes  on  to  account  for  strati- 
fication, which  he  extends  over  the  whole  antediluvian  era." 
To  this  we  may  add  a  few  other  quotations  to  show  how  far 
astray  Dr.  Adams  has  gone. 

Dr.  Ure,*  speaking  of  the  fossils  imbedded  in  the  Stonesfield 
slate,  says,  page  258 :  "We  have  here  therefore  an  unparalleled 

*Note. — We  do  not  intend  to  discuss  Dr.  Ure's  views  respecting  the 
formation  of  fossil-bearing  strata  below  the  "diluvium";  our  only  object 
above  is  to  show  how  inaccurate  Dr.  Adams's  statements  are.  Dr.  Ure 
was  excusable  for  his  errors,  for  the  facts  of  geology  had  not  been 
thoroughly  studied  when  he  wrote — the  science  was  then  in  its  infancy. 
As  Dr.  Ure  correctly  says,  p.  22,  "The  true  epoch  of  philosophical  geology 
can  scarcely  be  traced  farther  back  than  Mr.  Smith's  Mineralogical  Map 


884 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


instance  of  the  occurrence  of  animals  of  such  an  order,  in 
strata  deposited  long  before  the  superior  or  tertiary  rocks, 
which  are  the  ordinary  mineral  repositories  of  the  exuviae  of 
the  quadrupeds  buried  so  long  before  the  flood."  That  is, 
tertiary  fossils  "long  before"  the  flood,  and  Stonesfield  fossils 
"long  before"  the  tertiary !  On  page  499,  Dr.  Ure  says :  "The 
more  ancient  organic  remains  of  the  regular  secondary  and 
tertiary  strata  were  examined  in  treating  of  their  sepulchres. 
They  bear  good  evidence  of  having  been  inurned  at  a  period 
long  antecedent  to  the  deluge."  What  more  need  be  said  as  to 
Dr.  Adams's  assertion?  Can  it  be  safe  to  follow  him  in  scien- 
tific matters  ?  Can  we  regard  him  as  having  kept  his  Synodical 
promise,  (as  he  states  it,)  either  as  to  who  are  "recognised 
geologists",  or  as  to  the  views  held  touching  the  Noachic  flood 
by  the  only  person  he  names  who  has  the  least  claim  to  be 
recognised  as  a  geologist? 

If  we  were  asked  how  it  has  been  possible  for  Dr.  Adams, 
after  reading  the  works  of  seven  of  these  eight  writers,  to 
assert  before  the  world  that  he  regards  them  as  recognised 
geologists,  we  would  be  forced  to  say  the  question  is  too  hard 
for  us.  We  must  take  it  for  granted  that  he  has  carefully 
read  their  works,  for  surely  he  would  not  assume  to  be  an 
expounder  of  their  views  unless  he  had  done  so. 

But  confessing  our  inability  to  answer  this  question,  there 
is  another  equally  hard.    Dr.  Adams  quotes  as  respectable 

of  England,  and  the  foundation  of  the  Geological  Society  of  London. 
Since  then,  the  Cosmological  schools  have  been  waning  fast  away."  Dr. 
Ure  goes  on  to  say  that  these  Cosmological  systems  "have  many  partisans 
in  the  world;  they  merit  a  slight  review,  merely  considered  as  sports  of 
the  human  intellect."  So  Dr.  Ure  wrote  in  1829;  so  he  might  still  write, 
were  he  alive,  in  1887.  Mr.  Smith's  complete  Map  was  published  in  1815; 
the  Geological  Society  was  established  in  1807. 

Dr.  Ure  was  not  alone  amongst  those  who  were  really  studying  geology 
in  his  day,  in  attributing  the  "diluvium"  or  drift  to  the  Noachic  flood; 
for  this  opinion  was  held  for  a  time  by  such  masters  of  the  young  science 
as  Buckland,  Greenough,  and  Sedgwick.  But  they  continued  their 
examination  of  the  earth's  strata,  and  not  long  after  1830  they  discovered, 
one  after  another,  that  their  earlier  views  had  been  wrong,  and,  like 
sincere  lovers  of  the  truth,  they  published  to  the  world  that  their  former 
utterances  were  wholly  erroneous.  Professor  Buckland  applied  the  term 
"diluvium"  to  the  deposits  which  he  had  supposed  to  be  formed  by  the 
flood.  This  diluvium  was  found  to  constitute  only  a  mere  fragment  of 
the  geological  series;  but  yet,  mere  fragment  as  it  is,  all  geologists  soon 
came  to  see  that  it  was  too  vast  to  have  been  formed  by  a  flood  which 
lasted  only  a  single  year. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


885 


geological  opinions  the  following:  "If,  for  instance,  it  should 
be  conceded  that  the  granitic  or  basaltic  strata  were  once  in  a 
state  of  fusion,  there  is  no  reason  why  we  should  not  call  in  the 
aid  of  supposition  to  produce  rapid  refrigeration.  .  .  .  The 
degree  of  cold  may  have  been  such  as  to  cool  down  the  liquid 
granite  and  basalt  in  a  few  hours  and  render  it  congenial  to 
animal  and  vegetable  life."  " Alluvial  strata  are  ejected  lavas 
from  volcanoes."  Is  Dr.  Adams  laughing  at  his  readers  when 
he  quotes  such  passages  ?  No  one  could  say  or  seriously  repeat 
such  sentences  who  has  the  least  knowledge  of  granite,  basalt, 
lava,  alluvial  strata,  or  the  rate  at  which  heated  bodies  cool. 
We  greatly  fear  Dr.  Adams  repeats  them  seriously.  It  is  use- 
less for  him  to  ask  in  a  case  of  this  kind  that  views  and  theories 
of  others  be  not  fastened  on  him ;  for  no  one  could  quote  what 
betrays  such  entire  ignorance  without  thereby  showing  his 
participation  in  it. 

Having  now  examined  Dr.  Adams's  ancient  witnesses,  it  is 
not  necessary  to  say  much  touching  the  alleged  difference  of 
opinion  amongst  geologists  as  to  the  antiquity  of  the  earth.  So 
far  as  the  age  of  the  earth  concerns  us  here,  there  is  such 
perfect  agreement  at  the  present  day  that  the  question  is  never 
raised  amongst  geologists  ;  it  has  been  too  long  settled ;  it  would 
be  like  discussing  the  question  whether  or  not  the  sun  is  millions 
of  miles  from  the  earth.  But  we  may  quote  the  following 
statements  on  this  point  made  by  contemporaries  of  Dr. 
Adams's  [anti]  "geologists"  who  lived  nearly  two  generations 
ago: 

"The  anti-geologists  taunt  the  geologists  with  their  diversities 
of  opinion,  but  keep  back  that  no  two  of  themselves  agree; 
whereas  the  geologists,  amidst  all  their  controversies,  are 
unanimous  as  to  the  main  points  which  their  opponents  repre- 
sent as  heretical :  namely,  1.  The  impossibility  of  condensing  the 
actual  phenomena  of  the  fossil  strata  into  the  space  of  six 
thousand,  or  many  times  six  thousand  years.  Or,  2.  Of  admit- 
ting, with  due  regard  to  the  voice  of  truth,  that  the  death  of 
animals  is  not  to  be  traced  to  a  much  more  remote  period." 

"In  truth,  the  mass  of  evidence  which  combines  to  prove  the 
great  antiquity  of  the  earth  itself,  is  so  irresistible,  and  so 
unshaken  by  any  opposing  facts,  that  none  but  those  who  are 


886 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


alike  incapable  of  observing  the  facts  and  appreciating  the 
reasoning,  can  for  a  moment  conceive  the  present  state  of  its 
surface  to  have  been  the  result  of  only  six  thousand  years  of 
existence.  ...  It  is  now  admitted  by  all  competent  persons, 
that  the  formation  even  of  those  strata  which  are  nearest  the 
surface,  must  have  occupied  vast  periods,  probably  millions  of 
years,  in  arriving  at  their  present  state." 

The  proofs  of  these  statements  have  been  multiplied  a  hun- 
dred-fold since  they  were  written. 

We  spoke  last  week  of  Dr.  Adams's  letter  as  "instructive". 
But  we  did  not  mean  that  it  removed  any  of  the  "ignorance" 
which  had  been  "acknowledged"  by  Dr.  Woodrow.  It  was  a 
duty  which  he  discharged  many  years  ago  to  make  himself 
acquainted  with  the  writers  quoted  by  Dr.  Adams.  In  an  arti- 
cle published  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Review  twenty- 
four  years  ago  on  "Geology  and  its  Assailants",  he  pointed  out 
several  of  Dr.  Adams's  "recognised  geologists"  as  "anti-geo- 
logists" or  "assailants  of  geology",  as  well  as  a  number  of 
others  of  later  date.  But  we  found  his  letter  very  instructive 
in  showing  us  more  clearly  what  passes  for  science  and  scien- 
tific reasoning  with  one  of  the  principal  leaders  of  the  Synod 
of  Georgia  on  scientific  subjects,  and  presumably  with  those 
who  are  led  by  him.  It  is  instructive  to  discover  the  kind  of 
geological  teaching  which  is  depended  on.  We  had  previously 
discovered  what  notions  on  biology  prevailed,  or  rather  did  not 
prevail;  but  it  is  very  hard  to  overcome  our  reluctance  to 
believe  that  want  of  acquaintance  with  geology  should  be  so 
widespread,  when  its  principles  have  been  so  firmly  settled. 
And  the  despairing  question  arises,  If  our  most  intelligent 
classes  occupy  such  a  position  towards  the  settled  principles  of 
geology,  what  hope  is  there  that  they  will  decide  intelligently 
and  wisely  any  question  connected  with  biology  ? 

We  regret  the  necessity  of  discussing  these  topics,  and  we 
wish  to  avoid  it  as  far  as  possible.  But  in  this  case  it  seemed 
necessary,  as  part  of  a  discussion  which  occupied  the  attention 
of  the  Synod  of  Georgia  last  November,  and  in  which  the 
Church  as  a  whole  is  interested.  One  of  the  parties  attempted 
to  overthrow  the  argument  of  the  other  party  by  asserting  that 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


887 


statements  which  he  made  were  incorrect.,  and  he  said  that  he 
would  send  the  proofs  of  his  assertion  to  be  published  in  the 
Southern  Presbyterian.  These  supposed  proofs  we  thought 
we  should  ask  for,  and  they  were  published  last  week.  As  the 
assertion  of  their  existence  constituted  part  of  the  argument 
by  which  Dr.  Adams  carried  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the 
Synod  with  him,  it  certainly  was  becoming  and  necessary  for 
us  to  examine  his  utterances  and  to  show,  as  we  have  done,  that 
he  is  entirely  wrong  in  every  particular. — Feb.  24. 


The  Earnest  Worker  ox  Evolution. 

As  our  readers  are  already  aware,  the  Earnest  Worker  for 
January  contains  an  article  entitled.  ''The  Two  Records"',  by 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Geo.  D.  Armstrong,  of  Norfolk,  Va.  The  Earnest 
Worker  is  published  by  the  authority  of  our  Church,  by  the 
Committee  of  Publication,  and  is  edited  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  J.  K. 
Hazen,  Secretary  of  Publication.  Hence  it  is  our  official 
Church  journal.  The  above  named  article  contains  the  follow- 
ing: 

"II.  Science,  as  it  is  set  forth  in  the  popular  writings  of  the 
day,  consists  of  (1)  A  body  of  well  ascertained  facts  and  prin- 
ciples, which  make  up  the  science  itself,  and  (2),  A  body  of 
hypotheses  and  conjectures,  more  or  less  probable,  by  means  of 
which  men  are  endeavoring  to  enlarge  the  domain  of  science. 
It  would  be  a  great  mistake  to  reject  the  use  of  all  hypotheses 
simply  because  they  were  unproven.  The  history  of  science 
furnishes  abundant  evidence  that  hypotheses,  even  such  as  have 
afterwards  been  discarded,  have  been  of  great  use  in  directing 
the  course  of  investigation  and  experiment  on  the  part  of  those 
who  were  laboring  for  the  enlargement  of  human  knowledge. 
Like  the  scaffolding  used  in  the  erection  of  a  building,  they 
have  been  of  great  service  while  the  building  is  going  up, 
though  removed  as  of  no  value  when  the  building  is  completed. 
But  we  should  never  forget  that  unproved  hypotheses  are  not 
properly  an  integral  part  of  science  itself.  Much  of  the  seem- 
ing discrepancy  between  science  and  revelation  to-day  arises 
out  of  a  disregard  of  this  distinction,  and  a  consequent  declara- 
tion that  science  testifies  to  this,  and  science  testifies  to  that, 
when,  in  fact,  the  testimony  is  not  that  of  science,  but  that  of 
some  unproved  hypothesis. 

"As  an  instance  in  point,  take  the  hypothesis  of  evolution  as 
applied  to  man,  about  which  so  much  has  been  said  and  written 


888 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


in  our  day.  According  to  the  statements  of  its  warmest  advo- 
cates, it  is  confessedly  nothing  more  than  a  hypothesis,  as  yet 
unproved ;  and,  if  Professor  Huxley  be  correct  in  his  statement, 
'It  appears  to  me  that  the  scientific  investigator  is  wholly  incom- 
petent to  say  anything  at  all  about  the  first  origin  of  the 
material  universe.  The  whole  power  of  his  organon  vanishes 
when  he  has  to  step  beyond  the  chain  of  natural  causes  and 
effects' — (Order  of  Creation,  p.  153) — it  is  incapable  of  scien- 
tific proof.  The  hypothesis  of  evolution  is  utterly  rejected  by 
some  of  the  ablest  scientists  of  the  day,  e.  g.,  by  Principal 
Dawson,  the  Duke  of  Argyll,  Virchow,  and  Etheridge ;  and 
many  others  who  adopt  it  as  it  applies  to  plants  and  animals  in 
general,  simply  as  a  working  hypothesis,  reject  it  as  applied  to 
man,  e.  g.,  Professor  Dana  writes,  'If,  then,  the  present  teach- 
ing of  geology  as  to  the  origin  of  species  is  for  the  most  part 
indecisive,  it  still  strongly  confirms  the  belief  that  man  is  not  of 
nature's  making.  Independently  of  such  evidence,  man's  high 
reason,  his  unsatisfied  aspirations,  his  free  will,  all  afford  the 
fullest  assurance  that  he  owes  his  existence  to  the  special  act  of 
the  Infinite  Being  whose  image  he  bears'.  (The  Geological 
Story,  p.  253).  Supposing  now  that  it  is  true,  as  many  believe, 
that  the  Scriptures  teach  us  the  immediate  creation  of  man, 
there  would  be  no  conflict  between  this  doctrine,  and  science 
properly  so  called.  The  conflict  would  be  between  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Scripture,  and  a  hypothesis,  by  its  own  advocates 
confessed  to  be  as  yet  an  unproved  hypothesis,  and  if  Professor 
Huxley  is  right,  incapable  of  proof." 

We  regret  that  the  Secretary  of  Publication  has  introduced 
into  the  Church's  official  journal  the  discussion  of  the  subject 
which  has  for  some  time  been  agitating  the  Church.  Our 
regret  is  not  that  what  is  published  is  grievously  erroneous  and 
misleading,  as  we  believe  it  to  be,  but  that  anything  at  all  on 
the  subject  is  put  forth  officially  in  the  name  of  the  Church; 
it  would  be  quite  as  great,  and  we  would  look  upon  it  as  equally 
a  departure  from  official  propriety,  if  the  views  published  had 
been  in  exact  accordance  with  our  own.  It  is  as  if  the  Earnest 
Worker  had  participated  last  year  in  the  discussion  of  the  mar- 
riage question  before  the  Church,  or  should  now  give  its 
opinions  touching  the  union  of  the  Northern  and  Southern 
Churches. 

Dr.  Armstrong's  Argument  Against  Evolution. 

Since  the  subject  of  evolution  has  in  this  official  way  been 
again  forced  on  the  attention  of  the  whole  Church,  however 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


839 


reluctant  we  may  be  to  recur  to  the  subject,  loyalty  to  the  truth 
requires  us  to  point  out  the  character  of  Dr.  Armstrong's 
reasoning.  We  do  not  intend  to  present  arguments  in  favor  of 
evolution,  but  merely  to  show  that,  if  it  is  to  be  rejected,  it 
must  be  for  very  different  reasons  from  those  presented  by  the 
author  of  the  article  under  examination.  This  we  will  do  as 
clearly  as  we  can.  We  esteem  Dr.  Armstrong  very  highly  as 
an  excellent  Christian  gentleman  and  a  most  useful  pastor; 
but  we  think  it  will  appear  that  it  is  unsafe  and  unwise  to 
follow  his  leadership  in  scientific  matters,  or  in  questions  con- 
cerning the  relations  between  science  and  revelation,  as  so  many 
have  recently  seemed  inclined  to  do. 

Referring  to  the  extract  from  Dr.  Armstrong's  article  given 
above,  it  will  be  seen  that  his  reasons  for  asserting  that  evolu- 
tion is  an  "unproved  hypothesis"  instead  of  a  doctrine  of 
science  are  (1)  that  it  "is  utterly  rejected  by  some  of  the  ablest 
scientists  of  the  day,  e.  g.s  by  Principal  Dawson,  the  Duke  of 
Argyll,  Virchow,  and  Etheridge" ;  (2)  that  "according  to  the 
statements  of  its  warmest  advocates,  it  is  nothing  more  than 
a  hypothesis,  as  yet  unproved,"  and  (3)  that  even  Professor 
Huxley,  one  of  its  strongest  advocates,  maintains  that  it  is 
"incapable  of  proof." 

Let  us  examine  these  three  propositions. 

1.  Dr.  Armstrong's  statement  that  Principal  Dawson  rejects 
evolution  is  correct ;  and  it  is  also  true  that  he  is  one  of  "the 
ablest  scientists  of  the  day."  We  would  hardly  have  called  the 
Duke  of  Argyll  one  of  the  "ablest  scientists",  although  he  has 
written  able  works  on  topics  connected  with  science  :  but  it  is  a 
mistake  to  say  that  he  utterly  rejects  evolution,  as  has  already 
been  pointed  out  in  these  columns.  Virchow  is  properly  classed 
as  to  his  place  in  science,  but  it  is  even  a  greater  mistake  to 
say  that  he  utterly  rejects  evolution  than  that  the  Duke  of 
Argyll  does  so.  This  also  we  have  previously  shown.  As  to 
Mr.  Etheridge,  who  is  an  assistant  keeper  in  the  British 
Museum,  we  have  nothing  to  say,  except  to  venture  the  guess 
that  Dr.  Armstrong  never  heard  of  him  until  he  saw  a  letter  to 
the  New  York  'Evangelist  from  Dr.  George  E.  Post,  in  which  he 
is  mentioned  as  connected  with  the  British  Museum,  and  as 
having  made  the  remark  that  "In  all  this  great  Museum  there 


890 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  of  transmutation  of  species.  Nine- 
tenths  of  the  talk  of  evolutionists  is  sheer  nonsense,  not  founded 
on  observation,  and  wholly  unsupported  by  facts,"  and  more  to 
the  same  purpose.  Of  course,  Dr.  Armstrong  could  not  forego 
the  pleasure  of  calling  in  so  swift  a  witness ;  but  from  all  he 
knew  of  him  he  was  led  to  place  Assistant  Keeper  Etheridge 
amongst  the  "ablest  scientists  of  the  day"  by  reason  of  his  testi- 
mony, and  not  on  account  of  what  he  knew  of  his  character. 
But  as  he  was  hard  bested  to  find  any  names  to  add  to  Principal 
Dawson's,  he  may  be  excusable  for  pressing  him  into  service. 

Clearly,  in  a  case  like  this,  the  views  of  a  certain  number  of 
scientific  men  may  be  supposed  to  have  decisive  weight  only 
when  they  fairly  represent  the  general  opinion  of  all  scientific 
men  who  have  devoted  themselves  to  the  special  branch  of 
knowledge  involved.  Now,  Dr.  Armstrong  knows  very  well 
that  scientific  men  generally  do  not  reject  evolution.  He 
knows  that  exactly  the  opposite  is  true.  Therefore  if  we  admit 
that  those  whom  he  names  are  of  the  "ablest",  and  that  they 
have  given  their  lives  to  the  study  of  the  subject,  and  that  they 
utterly  reject  the  hypothesis  of  evolution,  he  proves  nothing 
except  that  by  diligence  he  can  find  a  few  scientific  men  who 
dissent  from  the  conclusions  reached  by  the  overwhelming 
majority  of  their  fellows.  Not  merely  a  few,  but  many,  of  the 
ablest  and  most  learned  students  and  teachers  of  the  Bible, 
after  life-long  investigation,  declare  that  it  is  not  inspired ;  now, 
unless  Dr.  Armstrong  looks  on  this  fact  as  a  reason  for  not 
believing  the  doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Sacred  Script- 
ures, he  ought  not  to  have  represented  the  existence  of  his 
four  dissenters  as  disproving,  or  even  tending  to  disprove,  the 
doctrine  of  evolution. 

Every  one  (including  Dr.  Armstrong,  no  doubt)  who  has 
inquired  into  the  matter  knows  that  the  testimony  recently 
given  by  a  California  University  Professor  is  true.  Professor 
Joseph  LeConte  says  in  his  "Relations  of  Evolution  to  Reli- 
gious Thought": 

"For  some  years  past  two  questions  have  agitated  the  reli- 
gious world.  1.  Is  evolution  true?  2.  If  so:  what  will  be  its 
effect  on  traditional  religious  beliefs? 

"The  first  question  I  believe  is  already  settled  in  the  minds 
of  thinkers,  and  will  shortly  be  so  in  the  minds  of  all  men.  I 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


891 


believe  it  has  reached  that  stage  of  scientific  unanimity  when 
discussion  is  no  longer  fruitful.  I  believe  evolution  absolutely 
certain.  Not,  indeed,  evolution  as  a  special  theory,  Lamarkian, 
Darwinian,  or  Spencerian;  for  these  are  only  more  or  less 
successful  modes  of  explaining  evolution;  not  evolution  as  a 
school  of  thought  with  its  following  of  disciples,  but  evolution 
as  a  scientific  fact,  evolution  as  a  universal  law  of  nature — as 
a  universal  law  of  derivation.  In  this  sense  it  is  not  only 
certain,  it  is,  I  believe,  axiomatic." 

We  may  also  repeat  the  testimony  of  the  Yale  College  Pro- 
fessor which  we  published  some  time  ago,  and  which  all  who 
are  acquainted  with  the  subject  know  to  be  true.  Professor 
Brewer  says: 

"I  think  that  the  working  naturalists  of  the  world  are  as 
substantially  agreed  as  to  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  of  evolution 
as  the  educated  men  of  the  world  are  as  to  the  rotundity  of  the 
earth. 

"I  am  a  member  of  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences.  Of 
the  ninety-four  living  members  (I  have  run  through  the  list), 
I  am  acquainted  personally  with  thirty-two  naturalists  who 
believe  in  evolution  (I  exclude  from  this  all  the  mathematicians, 
astronomers,  physicists,  engineers,  etc.,  and  all  others  whose 
belief  I  have  no  knowledge  of),  and  I  do  not  know  of  any 
member,  naturalist  or  otherwise,  who  denies  it ;  but  then  I  have 
no  positive  knowledge  as  to  the  beliefs  of  a  number  of  the 
members." 

Now,  we  do  not  say  that  the  question  is  to  be  settled  by 
authority ;  but  we  do  say,  if  we  are  to  rely  on  authority,  it  is  on 
the  authority  of  the  overwhelming  majority,  and  not  on  that  of 
a  few  dissidents,  as  Dr.  Armstrong  would  have  us  do. 

2.  Touching  the  next  point — that  "according  to  the  state- 
ments of  its  warmest  advocates,  it  is  nothing  more  than  a 
hypothesis,  as  yet  unproved" — it  might  be  sufficient  to  refer  to 
Professor  LeConte's  words  quoted  above.  He  at  least  does 
not  so  regard  it,  it  would  seem,  nor  those  whose  opinions  he  is 
describing.  He  says  :  "I  believe  evolution  is" — not  an  unproved 
hypothesis,  but — "absolutely  certain."  He  speaks  of  "evolu- 
tion as  a  scientific  fact"  ;  as  "not  only  certain  ",  but  "axiomatic". 
But  as  these  words  have  only  recently  been  published,  and  may 
not  have  become  known  to  Dr.  Armstrong,  let  us  compare  his 
assertion  with  those  which  he  does  know.  He  is  familiar  with 
Professor  Huxley's  New  Lectures,  for  in  his  writings  he  often 


892 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


quotes  from  them.  Now,  Professor  Huxley,  in  his  Third  Lec- 
ture, after  having  explained  some  of  the  facts  on  which  the 
doctrine  of  evolution  is  based,  says : 

"That  is  what  I  mean,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  by  demonstra- 
tive evidence  of  evolution.  An  inductive  hypothesis  is  said  to 
be  demonstrated  when  the  facts  are  shown  to  be  in  entire 
accordance  with  it.  If  that  is  not  scientific  proof,  there  are  no 
inductive  conclusions  which  can  be  said  to  be  scientific.  And 
the  doctrine  of  evolution  at  the  present  time  rests  upon  exactly 
as  secure  a  foundation  as  the  Copernican  theory  of  the  motions 
of  the  heavenly  bodies.  Its  basis  is  precisely  of  the  same 
character — the  coincidence  of  the  observed  facts  with  theoreti- 
cal requirements." 

"In  fact,  the  whole  evidence  is  in  favor  of  evolution,  and 
there  is  none  against  it.  And  I  say  that,  although  perfectly 
aware  of  the  seeming  difficulties  which  have  been  adduced 
from  what  appears  to  the  uninformed  to  be  a  scientific  founda- 
tion." 

And  yet  Dr.  Armstrong,  knowing  this,  ventures  to  say  in  a 
journal  published  by  the  Presbyterian  Church,  that  "according 
to  the  statements  of  its  warmest  advocates,  it  is  nothing  more 
than  a  hypothesis,  as  yet  unproved"!  Can  we  accept  him,  in 
view  of  this,  as  a  safe  teacher  and  leader? 

3.  The  third  point  is  that  even  Professor  Huxley,  one  of  its 
strongest  advocates,  maintains  that  it  is  "incapable  of  proof." 
Dr.  Armstrong's  reason  for  ascribing  such  an  opinion  to  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  is  as  follows.  After  speaking  of  evolution,  he 
says : 

"If  Prof.  Huxley  be  correct  in  his  statement — 'It  appears 
to  me  that  the  scientific  investigator  is  wholly  incompetent  to 
say  anything  at  all  about  the  first  origin  of  the  material 
universe.  The  whole  power  of  his  organon  vanishes  when  he 
has  to  step  beyond  the  chain  of  natural  causes  and  effects' — it 
is  incapable  of  scientific  proof." 

That  Professor  Huxley  holds  that  evolution  is  "incapable  of 
proof"  is  plainly  only  Dr.  Armstrong's  logical  inference,  good 
or  otherwise.  We  do  not  suppose  that  any  one  can  doubt  the 
statement  "that  the  scientific  investigator  is  wholly  incompetent 
to  say  anything  at  all  about  the  first  origin  of  the  material 
universe."  Such  knowledge  is  too  high  for  him;  he  cannot 
attain  unto  it.  All  that  the  scientific  investigator  can  do  is 
humbly  to  trace  the  operation  of  the  law  which  the  Almighty 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


893 


has  ordained  and  to  examine  the  effects  which  he  has  produced 
by  them  since  the  "first  origin".  Here  the  man  of  science  and 
the  most  ignorant  of  men  stand  on  the  same  level;  all  that 
either  can  ever  know  of  the  first  origin  must  come  as  a  revela- 
tion from  the  lips  of  the  Almighty  Creator.  But  Dr.  Arm- 
strong's inference  is  that  if  we  are  incompetent  to  say  anything 
at  all  about  the  first  origin,  then  we  are  incompetent  to  say 
anything  as  to  the  order  in  which  events  have  taken  place  since 
and  the  connexion  between  them;  that  is,  that  all  science  is 
impossible.  Surely  nothing  more  is  needed  to  show  that  the 
inference  is  wholly  Dr.  Armstrong's  own — that  it  is  separated 
by  an  impassable  gulf  from  Professor  Huxley's  clear  and  true 
statement  concerning  the  limits  of  the  province  of  science. 

We  are  persuaded  that  much  of  the  opposition  to  natural 
science  generally  and  of  the  false  views  respecting  it  by  those 
not  acquainted  with  it  arises  from  the  error  into  which  Dr. 
Armstrong  has  here  fallen — that  it  is  striving  after  the  impos- 
sible, after  a  knowledge  of  the  first  origin  of  the  material 
universe,  by  its  own  methods  of  research.  When  the  truth  is 
that  it  is  the  student  of  natural  science  more  than  all  other  men 
who  is  forced  to  see  that  "the  whole  power  of  his  organon 
vanishes  when  he  has  to  step  beyond  the  chain  of  natural 
causes  and  effects." 

Having  shown  how  far  astray  Dr.  Armstrong  has  wandered 
in  his  unfortunate  attempts  to  make  it  appear  that  evolution  is 
an  "unproved  hypothesis,"  "incapable  of  proof,"  we  may  next 
examine  what  he  says  of  the  doctrine  as  applied  to  man. 

He  tells  us  that  "many  others  who  adopt  it  as  it  applies  to 
plants  and  animals  in  general,  simply  as  a  working  hypothesis., 
reject  it  as  applied  to  man ;"  and  refers  to  Professor  Dana  as 
an  illustration  of  this  class.  How  far  this  statement  is  correct, 
depends  on  what  is  meant  here  by  "man".  If  the  bodily  tene- 
ment of  the  soul  is  meant  as  well  as  the  soul  itself — God's 
image — then  it  is  not  correct.  The  Central  Presbyterian  says 
that  "Professor  Dana  believes  'that  Adam  was  probably  the 
direct  offspring  of  one  of  the  lower  animals.'  "  But  without 
stopping  to  discuss  the  accuracy  of  the  Central  Presbyterian's 
editorial  utterance,  we  learn  from  a  letter  from  Professor  Dana 
which  it  publishes,  that  he  says :  "I  admit  that  it  [the  creation 


894 


DR.  JAMSS  WOODROW. 


of  man's  body]  may  have  been  creation  from  an  inferior 
species,  and  not  directly  from  lifeless  matter."  From  Profes- 
sor Dana's  statements,  therefore,  it  is  plain  that  he  believes  that 
nature — that  is,  God  operating  by  his  ordinary  laws — may  have 
made  man's  body,  but  not  his  soul ;  that  that  was  the  result  of  a 
"special  act  of  the  Infinite  Being  whose  image  he  bears."  If 
we  now  read  what  Dr.  Armstrong  quotes  from  Professor  Dana 
with  the  supplement  which  we  have  furnished,  the  symmetrical 
whole  is  marvellously  like  the  following  from  one  who  accepts 
evolution  within  certain  limits  as  at  least  probably  true:  "As 
regards  the  soul  of  man,  which  bears  God's  image,  and  which 
differs  so  entirely  not  merely  in  degree  but  in  kind  from  any- 
thing in  the  animals,  I  believe  that  it  was  immediately  created, 
that  we  are  here  so  taught."  "I  believe  that  Adam  as  Adam, 
that  is,  as  a  being  consisting  of  body  and  soul,  appeared  sud- 
denly on  the  earth  as  a  miraculous  creation." 

But  it  is  evident  that  it  was  Dr.  Armstrong's  design  to  repre- 
sent Professor  Dana  and  the  class  to  which  he  belongs  as 
rejecting  evolution  as  applied  to  man,  body  and  soul.  An 
appeal  to  the  facts  shows  that  here  as  well  as  in  respect  to  the 
first  three  points  he  has  signally  failed. 

Dr.  Armstrong  as  the  Scientific  Leader  of  the  Church. 

The  author  of  these  mistakes  is  widely  regarded  as  the  leader 
of  our  Church  on  scientific  subjects;  and  therefore  it  may  not 
be  amiss  still  further  to  examine  his  qualifications  for  the  posi- 
tion, especially  when  he  appears  also  as  the  scientific  teacher  of 
our  children  through  our  official  Sabbath-school  journal.  He 
has  furnished  an  opportunity  for  such  an  examination  by 
publishing  a  book  entitled  "The  Two  Books  of  Nature  and 
Revelation  Collated",  which  in  part  is  made  up  of  the  Lectures 
on  Evolution,  revised  and  expanded,  which  we  noticed  nearly 
two  years  ago.  We  do  not  intend  to  review  the  book  as  a 
whole,  but  merely  to  look  into  two  or  three  points  so  as  to 
ascertain  whether  or  not  the  author  is  to  be  depended  upon  as 
a  safe  scientific  guide.  We  think  that  this  examination  will 
show  that  he  is  not. 

In  the  first  place,  he  entirely  misapprehends  what  evolution 
is.  We  long  ago  pointed  out  this  fact  to  him,  but  he  still  fails 
to  perceive  it.    In  his  Lectures  on  Evolution  he  defined  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


895 


term  thus:  "Evolution,  a  hypothesis  which  postulates  the 
transformation  of  an  oak,  not  immediately,  but  by  successive 
variations,  into  a  silk  worm,  a  silk  worm  into  a  frog,  and  a 
frog  into  a  man."  That  is,  evolution  holds  that  by  successive 
variations  the  lower  forms  of  animals  descend  from  plants  of 
the  highest  order,  etc.  In  his  book  he  repeats  the  above  defini- 
tion, and  restates  it  so  as  to  show  that  he  meant  exactly  what  he 
said,  thus:  "There  must  have  been  some  plant  which  had 
reached  the  same  stage  of  differentiation  with  the  cabbage  that 
did  occupy  a  place  in  the  ancestry  of  the  cow."  P.  58.  Dr. 
Armstrong  defended  these  definitions  before  the  Augusta 
Assembly,  as  he  does  in  his  book,  by  quoting  the  following 
from  Professor  Huxley : 

"If  the  doctrine  of  evolution  be  true,  it  follows  that,  how- 
ever diverse  the  different  groups  of  animals  and  of  plants  may 
be,  they  must  all,  at  one  time  or  other,  have  been  connected 
by  gradational  forms ;  so  that  from  the  highest  animals,  what- 
ever they  may  be,  down  to  the  lowest  speck  of  protoplasmic 
matter  in  which  life  can  be  manifested,  a  series  of  gradations, 
leading  from  one  end  of  the  series  to  the  other,  either  exists  or 
has  existed.  Undoubtedly  that  is  a  necessary  postulate  of  the 
doctrine  of  evolution." 

And  the  great  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Assembly 
evidently  thought  his  defence  complete. 

Now,  Dr.  Armstrong's  definition  must  make  it  clear  to  every 
one  who  has  even  a  slight  knowledge  of  the  subject  that  he  has 
utterly  failed  to  apprehend  what  evolution  is ;  and  it  seems 
useless  to  hope  that  he  will  ever  do  so,  since  after  careful  reex- 
amination he  adheres  to  his  definition  and  defends  it,  and  even 
thinks  that  it  is  substantially  the  same  as  Prof.  Huxley's.  As 
we  said  two  years  ago,  no  evolutionist  believes  anything  at  all 
like  that  which  is  here  said  to  be  evolution.  And  one  who  errs 
so  grievously  as  to  the  very  meaning  of  the  subject  to  be  dis- 
cussed, and  who  can  regard  Dr.  Armstrong's  definition  and 
Professor  Huxley's  as  substantially  the  same,  surely  cannot  be 
safely  followed. 

But  this  is  not  his  only  mistake  here,  for  he  still  confounds 
"natural  selection"  with  "evolution".  "Natural  selection"  is 
the  cause  by  which  some  suppose  that  the  effect  "evolution"  is 
produced.    Many  who  regard  the  doctrine  of  evolution  as 


896 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


demonstrated  truth,  do  not  believe  in  the  Darwinian  hypothesis 
of  natural  selection.  Two  years  ago  we  pointed  out  the  error 
of  confounding  these  terms;  but  in  his  book  Dr.  Armstrong 
claims  in  replying  to  us  that  he  had  not  committed  it.  P.  83. 
Yet  on  the  same  page  and  the  next  he  shows  that  he  has  not  yet 
succeeded  in  disentangling  these  two  wholly  different  things  in 
his  mind;  for  after  quoting  what  Professor  Huxley  says  of 
"natural  selection,"  he  adds,  "In  explanation  of  Professor  Hux- 
ley's remark,  quoted  above,  that  evolution  is  'the  only  extant 
hypothesis  that  is  worth  anything,' "  etc.  Now,  Professor 
Huxley  had  said  this  about  "natural  selection" ;  but  Dr.  Arm- 
strong, thinking  that  the  two  are  the  same,  uses  the  expressions 
interchangeably.  To  suppose  otherwise  would  be  to  attribute 
to  him  intentional  misrepresentation ;  and  of  this  we  know  that 
he  is  incapable.    But  it  is  needless  to  go  farther  on  this  point. 

With  regard  to  other  scientific  subjects,  as  well  as  evolution, 
Dr.  Armstrong  has  evidently  forgotten  what  must  have  been 
well  known  to  him  when  he  was  Professor  of  Geology  at  Lex- 
ington. For  example,  on  page  67,  quoting  Darwin  he  says : 
"  'The  quadrumana  and  all  the  higher  mammals  are  probably 
derived  from  an  ancient  marsupial  animal,'  "  and  he  interjects 
by  way  of  explanation,  " — the  marsupial  most  common  in  Vir- 
ginia is  the  opossum — ."  Now  of  course  this  means  that  there 
are  other  marsupials  less  common  than  the  opossum  in  Virginia. 
If  there  are  any  others,  the  fact  has  not  yet  been  discovered  by 
other  naturalists. 

Then  again,  on  page  135,  Dr.  Armstrong  states  as  a  fact 
which  he  knows  from  his  own  personal  observations,  that  which 
if  a  fact,  must  very  materially  modify  the  views  of  other 
geologists  in  several  particulars.    He  says  (p.  135)  : 

"At  how  recent  a  period  great  changes  in  the  surface  of  the 
earth  have  occurred  we  cannot  say  with  certainty ;  but  this  I 
know  from  my  own  personal  observations,  that  on  the  western 
flank  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains  in  Virginia  the  fossil  corals 
and  gorgonias  and  sponges  are  of  species  now  living  in  the  Gulf 
of  Mexico." 

Of  course,  Dr.  Armstrong  thinks  he  has  seen  these  things, 
but  as  a  former  Professor  of  geology  he  ought  to  know  that  he 
has,  before  he  asserts  it  in  a  book  intended  to  guide  his  readers 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


897 


in  subjects  of  the  highest  importance.  But  mistakes  on  such 
points  are  not  uncommon.  Scheuchzer  mistook  the  skeleton 
of  a  huge  saurian  for  that  of  one  of  the  giants  who  lived  in 
former  days.  Then  we  sometimes  hear  of  cannon-balls 
imbedded  in  the  undisturbed  coal  in  coal  mines.  And  we  our- 
selves have  had  fossil  boot-heels  and  corn-cobs  shown  us 
(which  we,  however,  had  to  pronounce  fragments  of  Ortho- 
ceratites  and  Encrinal  stems).  We  are  afraid  that  Dr. 
.Armstrong  erred  when  he  thought  he  saw  that  the  corals,  etc., 
on  the  western  flank  of  the  Alleghany  Mountains  in  Virginia, 
"are  of  species  now  living  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico."  Certainly, 
if  his  statement  is  correct,  he  owes  it  to  his  fellow  geologists 
and  to  the  science  of  geology,  to  put  the  facts  in  such  shape 
that  they  can  be  tested  and  become  generally  known ;  for  other 
geologists  are  not  in  the  least  acquainted  with  them. 

Such  errors  as  have  now  been  pointed  out  are  of  no  great 
importance  in  themselves;  but  they  come  to  be  so  when  they 
are  made  by  the  scientific  leader  of  our  Church.  It  is  reason- 
able to  expect  that  a  leader  in  scientific  matters  shall  be  thor- 
oughly and  accurately  acquainted  with  the  sciences  involved. 
How  well  Dr.  Armstrong  fulfils  this  expectation,  let  the  reader 
judge. 

Does  Dr.  Armstrong  Himself  Utterly  Reject  Evolution? 

But  after  all,  Dr.  Armstrong  is  not  so  violently  opposed  to 
evolution  as  might  appear  from  his  numerous  efforts  against  it. 
In  his  book,  page  96,  after  saying  that  "the  hypothesis  of  evolu- 
tion, taking  it  in  its  most  limited  range,"  "cannot  be  considered 
atheistic",  he  continues :  "Nor  is  it  irreconcilable,  as  I  think, 
with  the  Bible  account  of  the  origin  of  plants  and  animals  in 
the  world."  Now,  the  Bible  account  of  the  origin  of  animals 
is,  "And  out  of  the  ground  the  Lord  God  formed  every  beast 
of  the  field  and  every  fowl  of  the  air."  (Gen.  2:19).  The 
Bible  account  of  the  origin  of  man's  body  is,  "And  the  Lord 
God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground."  (Gen.  2:7).  The 
latter  of  these  two  accounts  he  thinks  is  wholly  irreconcilable 
with  the  idea  of  evolution ;  but  when  the  very  same  account  is 
given  of  the  origin  of  animals,  oh,  that  is  not  at  all  irreconcila- 
ble with  it ! 


57 — w 


898 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Again  Dr.  Armstrong  departs  from  his  early  faith — although 
he  tells  us  he  firmly  clings  to  the  faith  of  his  childhood,  when 
no  doubt  he  believed  with  Watts,  "  formed  us  of  clay  and  made 
us  men" — by  saying  that  he  "sees  no  objection  to  considering 
the  dust  spoken  of  in  Gen.  2  :7  as  organic  dust ;"  that  is,  as  he 
tells  us,  "the  soil  of  the  farmer,  the  humus  of  the  chemist" ; 
formed  from  "plants  and  animals"  which  must  "have  lived, 
died,  and  gradually  decayed,  leaving  their  organic  dust."  "The 
similarity  in  ultimate  composition  between  the  body  of  man  and 
that  of  plants  and  animals  would  seem  to  render  such  a  sup- 
position altogether  probable."  That  is,  Dr.  Armstrong  thinks 
it  altogether  probable  that  man's  body  was  made  out  of  dead 
animals.  Only  whatever  it  was,  it  must  have  been  very,  very 
dead. 

But  further,  Dr.  Armstrong  says:  "The  unfavorable  recep- 
tion which  it  [evolution]  has  met  at  the  hands  of  Christian  men 
generally  is  owing,  if  I  mistake  not,  like  that  of  poor  Tray  in 
the  old  fable,  not  so  much  to  what  it  is  in  itself,  as  to  the  com- 
pany in  which  they  found  it."  What  a  pitiable  picture  of 
Christian  men  this  is — that  what  they  seek  is  not  the  jewel 
truth,  though  it  be  in  the  head  of  the  toad,  but  any  dross  that 
may  be  set  before  them  by  those  whom  they  look  on  as  the  good. 
They  are  swayed  and  controlled  by  the  silly  objection  that  this 
doctrine  did  not  originate  in  Christian  research.  They  should 
reject  also  the  contaminating  knowledge  of  the  existence  of 
oxygen  and  its  properties,  because  Dr.  Priestley,  one  of  its 
discoverers,  was  a  Unitarian,  and  it  was  not  discovered  by 
Christian  research.  Surely  Dr.  Armstrong  cannot  very  seri- 
ously object  to  evolution  if  this  is,  as  he  intimates,  the  ground 
of  his  gravest  objection.  But  we  can  hardly  think  that  he  has 
drawn  a  fair  picture  of  himself ;  we  are  not  willing  to  believe 
that  he  has  been  impelled  by  such  an  objection  to  the  prepara- 
tion of  all  his  numerous  newspaper  articles  on  this  subject,  and 
his  lectures,  and  his  speeches  before  the  General  Assembly,  and 
his  book.  If  he  has,  it  might  be  well  for  him  to  turn  away  his 
attention  for  a  little  while  from  what  he  supposes  to  be  the  bad 
company,  and  to  look  at  Tray  himself  and  see  whether  after  all 
the  poor  fellow  deserves  such  treatment  as  he  has  bestowed 
upon  him. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


899 


Conclusion. 

In  what  we  have  said,  we  have  not  discussed  at  all  the  ques- 
tion of  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  of  evolution.  So  far  as  our 
faith  in  the  Bible  is  concerned,  as  we  have  often  said,  we  do 
not  care  whether  it  is  true  or  not.  Suppose  it  be  proved  to  be 
a  universal  law,  like  the  doctrine  of  gravitation,  how  can  it 
affect  our  faith  in  the  Bible  ?  Believing  the  doctrine  of  gravi- 
tation does  not  prevent  our  believing  that  the  axe  swam  which 
had  been  borrowed  by  one  of  the  sons  of  the  prophets,  or  that 
Jesus  Christ  walked  on  the  surface  of  the  water,  since  the  Bible 
so  teaches.  So  if  we  should  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  evolu- 
tion, we  would  not  thereby  be  kept  from  believing  that  man 
was  created  soul  and  body  by  God's  immediate  act,  provided 
the  Bible  so  teaches.  That  is  to  say,  every  believer  in  the  Bible 
must  believe  that  God  can  produce,  and  has  produced,  effects 
in  ways  that  are  different  from  his  ordinary  ways,  which  we 
call  "laws  of  nature." 

But  if  the  doctrine  of  evolution  should  happen  to  be  true, 
what  a  terrible  thing  those  are  doing  who  teach  that  it  contra- 
dicts God's  word. — Mar.  jr. 


Intentional  Misrepresentation. 

During  the  discussion  of  Evolution  which  has  been  going  on 
for  the  last  three  years,  Professor  Woodrow's  views  have  been 
very  often  misrepresented  by  those  who  have  regarded  them- 
selves as  opposing  them.  As  there  is  a  general  want  of 
acquaintance  with  the  subject,  we  have  whenever  possible 
attributed  the  misrepresentations  to  misunderstanding.  The 
power  and  extent  of  misunderstanding  thus  assumed  have 
indeed  often  been  extremely  great,  but  we  have  usually  suc- 
ceeded in  making  the  assumption,  for  we  have  been  unwilling 
to  believe  that  the  writers  and  speakers  in  question — good, 
honest  men  as  we  think  them  to  be — could  be  guilty  of  wilful 
falsehood.  In  such  cases  we  have  even  admired  the  zeal  shown 
against  what  was  looked  upon  as  dangerous  error — zeal  without 
sufficient  knowledge,  it  is  true,  yet  zeal  in  what  those  who  were 
animated  by  it  regarded  as  the  holiest  of  causes. 


900 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


But  sometimes  it  is  impossible  to  believe  that  the  cause  of 
the  misrepresentation  is  intellectual — it  is  too  plainly  moral. 
For  example,  the  Southwestern  Presbyterian  last  week  con- 
tained the  following  article: 

"The  End  of  Dr.  Woodrow' s  Case. 

"The  St.  Louis  Dispatch  seems  to  be  merry  at  the  prospect 
of  a  disturbance  in  the  Assembly  on  the  Woodrow  question. 
It  would  be  well  for  journals  of  that  ilk  to  study  some  of  their 
New  Orleans  exchanges  a  little  more  carefully.  The  question, 
after  the  meeting  of  the  last  Assembly,  was  tersely  and  com- 
prehensively summed  up  as  follows  by  the  New  Orleans  Pica- 
yune: 

"  'The  Rev.  James  Woodrow,  D.  D.,  Professor  in  the 
Presbyterian  Theological  Seminary  at  Columbia,  S.  C,  who 
has  for  some  time  been  a  sort  of  heretical  firebrand  in  his 
Church,  has  at  last  been  quenched  by  eviction  from  his  official 
position.  Dr.  Woodrow  occupied  the  Chair  of  Science  in  its 
Relations  to  the  Bible  Records,  and  his  functions  were  appar- 
ently to  proclaim  the  harmony  between  the  Scriptural  narrative 
of  the  genesis  of  man  and  the  revelations  of  Science.  The 
learned  Professor  having  adopted  the  Darwinian  theory  of 
Evolution,  with  its  bestial  antecedents,  monkey  and  all,  was  not 
able  to  make  his  science  consist  with  the  orthodox  account  of 
man's  origin,  and  as  it  appears  gave  Darwin  the  preference 
over  Moses  when  lecturing  to  his  divinity  students.  For  this 
he  was  called  in  question,  and  refusing  to  conform  to  the 
dogmas  of  the  Church,  or  to  submit  to  reproof,  he  was  sub- 
jected to  the  extremes  of  discipline.  Without  championing  any 
theory  or  system  of  cosmogony,  we  are  unable  to  see  any  valid 
objection  to  the  action  taken  by  the  authorities  of  the  Church  in 
the  premises. 

"  'A  Church  without  dogmas  of  faith  and  doctrine  is  no 
Church,  but  a  mere  shadow  based  on  individual  vagaries.  To 
these  fundamental  principles,  every  member  must  give  unquali- 
fied assent.  If  a  member,  by  reason  of  testimony  received  or 
new  light  shed  on  the  subject,  is  driven  to  reject  any  of  the 
fundamental  doctrines  to  which  he  has  subscribed,  then  he 
should  quit  the  Church  and  join  himself  to  those  of  like  belief; 
but  he  cannot  be  excused  for  persisting  to  remain  in  an  organi- 
sation with  which  he  is  out  of  harmony  and  whose  doctrines 
he  is  publicly  seeking  to  refute.  Under  all  the  circumstances, 
whatever  may  be  the  public  sympathy  with  the  deposed  Profes- 
sor, no  reasonable  fault  can  be  found  with  the  discipline  to 
which  he  was  amenable  and  was  subjected.' 

"This  puts  the  whole  case  in  a  nut-shell." 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


901 


Now,  the  editor  of  that  journal  knows  that  the  representa- 
tion here  given  is  untruthful.  The  Picayune  was  probably  mis- 
led by  what  it  had  heard  rumored,  but  the  editor  of  the 
Southwestern  knows  better ;  he  cannot  help  knowing  that  what 
he  here  endorses  is  not  true.  Therefore  if  he  desires  the 
reputation  of  an  honorable  and  truthful  man,  he  will  at  once 
retract  what  he  has  said. — May  26. 


The  Rev.  T.  H.  Law  and  the  Mecklenburg  Society. 

The  American  Bible  Society  is  one  of  the  noblest  organisa- 
tions in  this  country.  Its  sole  object,  as  stated  in  its  constitu- 
tion, is  to  encourage  a  wider  circulation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
The  headquarters  of  the  Society  are  in  New  York  city,  while 
there  are  several  thousand  auxiliary  societies  scattered  all  over 
the  United  States.  The  Society  employs  twenty  District 
Superintendents  to  supervise  its  work  in  the  different  States. 
The  District  Superintendent  for  North  and  South  Carolina  is 
the  Rev.  Thomas  H.  Law,  of  Spartanburg,  S.  C,  so  widely  and 
so  favorably  known  over  the  State.  Mr.  Law  has  been  actively 
engaged  in  prosecuting  the  distinctive  work  of  the  Bible 
Society,  and  has  been  signally  efficient  in  organising  local  socie- 
ties where  these  had  died  out  or  had  never  existed  and  in 
arousing  interest  in  the  cause. 

But  Mr.  Law  has  committed  one  unpardonable  sin.  He  has 
dared  in  the  recent  controversy  in  the  Synod  of  South  Carolina 
to  advocate  as  a  presbyter  the  side  that  proved  to  be  not  the 
"winning  side".  He  was  not  afraid  to  express  his  honest  con- 
victions and  to  vote  accordingly.  Hence  he  must  be  punished. 
It  is  true,  that  he  stands  with  men  as  noble,  as  clear-headed,  as 
pious  as  any  that  ever  preached  the  unsearchable  riches  of 
Christ.    They  also  must  be  punished  should  opportunity  offer. 

The  Mecklenburg,  N.  C,  County  Bible  Society  is  one  of  the 
auxiliary  societies  in  Mr.  Law's  District.  At  a  meeting  of  the 
Executive  Committee  of  this  Society  held  in  Charlotte  on  June 
17th,  the  following  preamble  and  resolution  were  adopted: 

Whereas,  rumors  are  afloat  in  our  county  concerning  the 
relations  of  our  District  Superintendent,  Rev.  Thos.  H.  Law, 
to  the  theory  of  evolution  as  taught  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Woodrow, 


902 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


and  to  his  support  of  that  gentleman  during  his  trial  before  the 
courts  of  his  Church;  and 

Whereas,  these  rumors  are  likely  to  prove  greatly  prejudicial 
to  the  work  of  our  Society  in  this  county,  unless  some  explana- 
tion shall  be  made  satisfactory  to  the  people — 

It  is,  therefore,  resolved,  That  the  Secretary  of  this  Com- 
mittee be,  and  he  is  hereby,  directed,  to  inform  the  Rev.  T.  H. 
Law  and  the  parent  Society  of  these  facts. 

To  this  Mr.  Law  made  the  following  reply : 

Spartanburg,  S.  C,  June  21,  1887. 
B.  K.  P.  Osborne,  Esq.,  Sec.  Bx.  Com.  M.  B.  S.: 
My  Dear  Sir  : 

Your  favor  conveying  the  preamble  and  resolution  adopted 
by  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Mecklenburg  County  Bible 
Society  on  the  17th  instant  is  at  hand.  In  reply  I  beg  to 
remind  the  Committee  that  the  American  Bible  Society,  accord- 
ing to  its  fundamental  and  time-honored  principles,  does  not 
and  cannot  recognise  the  controversies  which  divide  one  branch 
of  the  Church,  any  more  than  the  differences  which  separate 
between  the  various  denominations  of  Christians  entering  into 
the  Society,  and  neither  can  I,  as  its  representative,  without 
being  unfaithful  to  the  Society  and  betraying  its  character  as 
entrusted  to  my  keeping. 

I  therefore  deny  absolutely  the  right  of  your  Committee,  or 
of  the  Society  which  it  represents,  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  the 
matters  to  which  your  paper  relates;  and,  as  District  Superin- 
tendent of  the  American  Bible  Society,  I  positively  refuse  to 
make  any  statement  or  explanation  whatever,  concerning  my 
personal  views  or  relations  with  regard  to  these  matters. 
Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)    Thos.  H.  Law, 

Dist.  Supt.  A.  B.  S. 

Mr.  Law  at  once  wrote  to  the  parent  Society,  and  the  follow- 
ing is  an  extract  from  the  letter  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Alexander 
McLean,   Corresponding  Secretary  of  the  American  Bible 

Society : 

Bible  House,  New  York,  June  23,  1887. 
Rev,  Thos.  H.  Law,  Dist.  Supt.,  etc.: 

Dear  Sir:  Your  favor  of  the  21st  inst.,  with  copy  of  your 
letter  to  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Mecklenburg  County 
Bible  Society,  is  at  hand.  From  what  I  wrote  to  you  yester- 
day, you  will  see  that  you  have  answered  them  just  as  we 
would  have  desired. 

The  A.  B.  S.  does  not  take  any  side  whatever  in  the  contro- 
versies which  from  time  to  time  arise  in  all  ecclesiastical  bodies. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


903 


It  keeps  on  with  the  work  which  from  the  beginning  has  been 
its  sole  object,  and  we  are  pleased  to  see  that  you  have  been 
wise  enough  not  to  be  drawn  into  any  partisan  conflict. 
Yours  fraternally, 

(Signed)    Alex.  McLean, 

Cor.  Sec'y. 

Subsequently,  on  August  2d,  the  Mecklenburg  County  Bible 
Society  held  its  regular  meeting  and  adopted  the  following : 

Resolved,  That  as  a  Society,  we  fully  endorse  the  action  of 
our  Executive  Committee  in  adopting  and  forwarding  the 
resolutions  to  the  Rev.  Thos.  H.  Law  and  the  Parent  Society, 
in  reference  to  the  damage  done  to  the  interests  of  the  Society 
in  Mecklenburg  County,  growing  out  of  the  reports  of  certain 
views  held  by  Mr.  Law. 

Resolved,  That  the  foregoing  resolution  be  forwarded  to  the 
Parent  Society  with  a  copy  of  Mr.  Law's  letter  to  the  Execu- 
tive Committee,  and  a  statement  that  it  is  the  decided  opinion 
of  our  Society  that  we  have  been  damaged  by  the  fact  of  the 
belief  of  our  people  of  his  connexion  with  Dr.  Woodrow  and 
his  theory. 

This  action  was  published  in  various  secular  papers  of  North 
Carolina,  and  to  one  of  them  Mr.  Law  sent  the  following  state- 
ment: 

To  the  Editor  of  the  Chronicle: 

I  have  learned  accidentally  that  the  Mecklenburg  County 
Bible  Society  has  published  in  a  late  issue  of  The  Chronicle  a 
recent  correspondence  between  the  Executive  Committee  of 
that  Society  and  myself,  as  District  Superintendent  in  North 
and  South  Carolina  of  the  American  Bible  Society.  I  have  not 
sought  such  publicity  for  the  matter,  but  now  as  it  has  been 
thus  thrust  before  the  public,  I  ask  the  privilege  of  presenting 
through  your  columns  the  following  brief  and  simple  state- 
ment : 

As  to  the  scientific  theory  of  evolution,  I  do  not  claim  to 
know  anything  about  it.  I  have  never  had  the  time  nor  the 
opportunity  to  investigate  it  for  myself,  and  consequently  have 
not  been  able  to  arrive  at  an  opinion  whether  it  is  true  or  false. 
Hence  I  have  uniformly  declared  that  I  neither  believe  it  nor 
disbelieve  it. 

As  to  the  controversy  in  the  Southern  Presbyterian  Church 
involving  this  question,  I  dare  not,  in  my  character  as  an  officer 
of  the  American  Bible  Society,  take  either  side.  This  would 
be  in  direct  violation  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 


904 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Society,  which  is  strictly  and  thoroughly  non-sectarian  and 
non-partisan. 

When,  therefore,  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Mecklen- 
burg Society  asked  of  me  in  my  official  capacity  an  explanation 
of  my  views  in  relation  to  this  controversy,  I  could  see  but  one 
course  before  me  consistent  with  my  duty,  and  that  was  abso- 
lute non-committal.  Consequently  I  promptly  and  positively 
declined  to  say  anything  whatever  upon  this  or  any  other  such 
subject. 

In  the  position  which  I  thus  assumed  I  am  fully  sustained 
by  the  parent  Society,  the  officers  in  New  York  to  whom  I 
forwarded  at  once  my  reply  returning  an  unqualified  endorse- 
ment of  it. 

This  position,  therefore,  I  expect  to  maintain  strictly  and 
stoutly  so  long  as  I  remain  in  connexion  with  this  Society. 
Thoroughly  intrenched  in  the  consciousness  of  being  right,  no 
opposition  or  abuse  shall  drive  me  from  it. 

Thos.  H.  Law. 

Spartanburg,  S.  C,  Aug.  20,  '87. 

We  believe  that  we  need  add  nothing  to  this  simple  state- 
ment of  facts.  Mr.  Law's  position  is  so  manly  and  righteous 
that  it  will  commend  itself  to  all  right-thinking  minds.  His 
private  opinions  in  regard  to  any  matter  are  no  concern  of  the 
Mecklenburg  Society.  He  might  as  well  be  questioned  on 
infant  baptism,  because  the  President  of  that  Society  is  a 
Baptist  minister.  In  his  official  capacity  as  an  officer  of  the 
American  Bible  Society  his  sole  duty  is  to  spread  the  Script- 
ures. As  a  Presbyterian  minister,  his  duty  is  to  attend  the 
courts  of  his  Church  and  vote  as  his  conscience  dictates. 
"Rumors"  have  played  a  conspicuous  part  in  the  recent  history 
of  our  Church,  and  their  animus  is  not  difficult  of  discovery. — 
Sept.  8. 


Is  Religious  Controversy  a  Foe  to  Piety? 

Many  good  people  unhesitatingly  answer  this  question  in  the 
affirmative.  But  if  that  be  the  right  answer,  what  made  an 
inspired  apostle  say  that  the  wisdom  which  cometh  down  from 
above  is  first  pure,  then  peaceable?  He  plainly  teaches  us  in 
that  passage  to  insist  on  what  is  true  and  right  before  we  talk 
of  peace.  And  another  inspired  apostle  bids  us  contend 
earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints.  Perhaps 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


905 


there  has  never  been  a  more  dangerous  foe  to  religion  than  the 
very  prevalent  disposition  to  sacrifice  truth  to  peace. 

The  question  whether  controversy  is  unfavorable  to  religion 
depends  on  circumstances.  It  concerns  different  parties :  those 
who  engage  in  the  controversy,  and  the  Church  and  others  who 
witness  it.  The  effect  of  it  on  the  parties  engaged,  depends 
on  the  temper  in  which  they  carry  on  the  discussion  and  on  the 
object  which  they  are  seeking.  When  nothing  but  the  truth  is 
what  both  these  parties  are  anxious  to  see  established,  and 
accordingly  they  are  just  and  fair  to  each  other,  there  can  be 
only  good  to  issue  from  the  contention.  But  nothing  can  be 
more  hurtful  to  any  disputant  than  to  be  consciously  maintain- 
ing known  error,  or  to  be  suffering  prejudice,  pride,  and  pas- 
sion to  blind  his  eyes  while  he  fights  against  the  right  and  the 
true. 

The  Church  also  is  benefited  or  injured  along  with  the  dis- 
putants. Their  manner  and  mode  of  controversy  must  affect 
the  Church  and  others  who  look  on  favorably  or  unfavorably. 
And,  of  course,  it  is  a  great  damage  to  the  Church  when  that 
which  is  true  and  right  is  feebly  and  unsuccessfully  defended, 
while  the  opposite  comes  off  with  flying  colors. 

Undoubtedly  the  general  Christian  sentiment  is  against  all 
religious  controversy.  But  reason  and  history  and  the  Script- 
ures all  teach  that  it  is  very  frequently  not  only  a  necessity, 
but  a  high  and  sacred  duty.  It  must  needs  be  that  offences 
come.  The  Father  of  Lies  has  a  numerous  progeny  of  all 
sizes  and  shapes.  Christian  men  are  called  to  be  soldiers  of  the 
truth  and  must  fight  for  it.  From  the  very  beginning  religious 
controversies  have  been  going  on  continually.  The  very 
fiercest  wars  with  sword  and  spear  that  mankind  have  ever 
waged  have  been  wars  for  and  against  the  truth.  And  one 
reason  for  this  has  always  been  that  the  truth  in  religion  is,  and 
has  been  felt  to  be,  the  most  glorious  and  sacred  thing  outside 
of  God  Almighty's  everlasting  throne,  and  it  is  to  the  honor  of 
the  race  that  they  have  battled  for  it  accordiugly  with  its  real  or 
supposed  enemies  in  every  age. 

As  illustrating  what  is  here  maintained,  we  quote  the  follow- 
ing from  the  St.  Louis  Presbyterian : 


906 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Growth  in  the  Midst  of  Agitation. 

Our  Southern  Church  has  been  thoroughly  wrought  up  over 
one  thing  or  another  during  the  past  two  years,  but,  contrary 
to  the  positive  assurance  of  those  who  cannot  distinguish 
between  personal  squabble  and  contention  for  truth,  not  only 
has  not  ruin  overtaken  us,  but  we  have  been  making  very  grati- 
fying progress,  as  the  Minutes  of  the  Assembly  for  1886  and 
1887  show.  The  editor  of  Our  Monthly  has  been  looking  into 
those  Minutes  for  1887,  and  says  that  while  all  the  Synods  did 
well,  except  perhaps  the  Synod  of  Nashville  which  reports  a 
slight  loss  in  members,  "all  the  border  Synods  made  large 
gains."  Virginia  added  2,215  on  examination.  Kentucky  and 
Missouri  make  even  a  better  showing,  considering  that  they  and 
the  Northern  brethren  occupy  the  same  field,  Kentucky  reports 
1,352  additions  on  examination,  and  Missouri,  1,057.  But 
what  is  strange,  and  very  pleasant  to  record,  is  that  South 
Carolina,  the  very  centre  of  the  storm,  rejoices  over  1,397  new 
members  by  profession — thus  standing  next  to  Virginia,  which 
received  the  highest  number. — Oct.  6. 


A  Fearful  Responsibility. 

The  October  number  of  the  Presbyterian  Review  contains  an 
article  on  "Scientific  Speculation,"  from  the  pen  of  the  Rev. 
Dr.  George  Macloskie,  Professor  in  Princeton  College,  in  which 
the  author  points  out  the  fearful  responsibility  resting  upon 
those  who  "place  the  authority  of  the  Bible  in  either  scale  of  an 
uncertainty."  He  shows  how  infidelity  is  promoted  by  those 
who  oppose  science  and  scientific  speculation ;  and  that  in  many 
cases  students  of  science  must  either  become  infidels  or  refuse 
to  recognise  the  accredited  ministers  of  religion  as  trustworthy 
expounders  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  Such  accredited  minis- 
ters, for  example,  have  insisted,  and  many  still  insist,  that  the 
teachings  of  geology  as  to  the  age  of  the  earth  are  contrary  to 
the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures  on  the  same  subject.  The 
student  finds  that  the  teachings  of  geology  are  certainly  true — 
what  must  be  the  result,  so  long  as  he  regards  these  authorised 
official  interpreters  of  Scripture  as  accurately  setting  forth  its 
meaning  ?    And  in  such  a  case  who  is  to  blame  ? 

To  those  who  look  back  at  the  history  of  the  Church,  and  at 
its  condition  at  present,  it  must  seem  probable  that  such  reli- 
gious teachers  have  done  more  to  cause  infidelity  than  all  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


907 


assaults  upon  the  Bible  ever  made  by  its  enemies.  Shall  this 
terrible  experience  be  repeated  with  every  advance  in  science? 
The  outlook  is  dark.  But  surely  it  cannot  be  unreasonable  to 
hope  that  good  men,  Christian  men,  men  who  love  God  and  his 
word  and  who  earnestly  desire  the  salvation  of  their  fellow- 
men  through  Christ  Jesus, — that  such  men  will  at  last  learn  to 
preach  the  word  without  additions  of  their  own,  and  abstain 
from  erecting  barriers  of  their  own  creation  to  keep  out  from 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  those  who,  above  their  fellow-men, 
delight  in  studying  the  wonderful  works  of  God. 

We  cannot  give  the  whole  of  Dr.  Macloskie's  article ;  but  the 
following  extract  presents  clearly  and  impressively  the  lesson 
to  which  we  wish  to  call  attention : 

"Nor  is  it  possible  for  any  except  scientific  men  to  try  cases 
of  science ;  on  the  contrary,  even  among  scientific  men  it  is  only 
the  specialists  in  a  particular  department  that  can  render  a  safe 
opinion.    Errors  here  always  reflect  back  on  their  authors. 

"The  history  of  Darwinism  is  suggestive  of  the  method  to  be 
avoided  as  well  as  that  to  be  followed.  When  the  Origin  of 
Species  first  appeared,  every  intelligent  reader  saw  that  it  was 
crowded  with  unsolved  problems ;  but  notwithstanding  these,  it 
was  recognised  by  the  ablest  men  as  a  book  of  extraordinary 
scientific  merit.  I  cannot  pass  sentence  on  the  soundness  of  its 
main  principle,  but  I  know  that  it  has  reorganised  science  very 
much  for  the  better.  It  at  once  gave  easy  solutions  of  perplex- 
ing problems,  put  classification  on  a  new  basis,  and  marshalled 
our  disjointed  knowledge  into  a  consistent  unity;  and  the  lapse 
of  time,  while  starting  new  objections  against  it,  has  fortified 
its  claims  as  a  working  hypothesis  that  is  fertile  of  new  discov- 
eries. Nor  was  it  in  any  way  opposed  to  religion,  though  some 
men,  by  putting  atheism  into  their  definition  of  evolution,  are 
able  to  get  it  out  again  as  part  of  the  result.  It  was  only  an 
attempt  to  show  Nature's  (or  God's)  way  of  doing  things. 

"There  are  two  modes  of  dealing  with  a  case  of  this  kind. 
We  may  resist  the  new  theory,  and  stake  the  authority  of  Script- 
ure on  its  failure,  and  even  reproach  the  masters  of  science 
because  they  will  not  surrender  to  our  call.  This  course  was 
adopted  by  some,  and  may  be  estimated  from  its  fruit.  'How 
comes  it',  asked  a  friend  of  ours  of  a  biologist  in  one  of  the 


908 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


foremost  universities  of  the  Old  World,  'that  nearly  all  the 
biologists  of  this  place  are  skeptical?'  'Because  we  are  taught 
in  school',  was  the  reply,  'that  if  Darwinism  is  right,  then  the 
Bible  must  be  in  error;  and  on  coming  to  college,  we  found 
evidence  that  after  all  Darwinism  is  right,  and  we  decided 
accordingly.'  The  usual  opinion  among  students  in  that  place 
is  that  if  a  man  aspires  to  be  a  biologist,  he  cannot  be  a  Chris- 
tian. Infidelity  took  advantage  of  this  juncture,  both  friends 
and  enemies  of  the  Bible  agreeing  that  the  success  of  evolution 
would  be  fatal  to  religion;  and  Christian  young  men  were 
deterred  from  branches  of  science  that  portended  ruin  to  their 
faith  or  exposed  them  to  suspicion. 

"The  other  way  of  meeting  the  case  is  to  acknowledge,  so 
far  as  seems  just,  the  merits  of  evolution,  and  the  force  of 
arguments  in  its  favor,  recognising  whatever  weakness  or  objec- 
tions may  be  charged  against  it ;  to  take  advantage  of  the  help 
that  it  can  give  us  in  our  researches ;  to  refrain  from  commit- 
ting ourselves  to  or  against  it,  till  the  way  be  clear ;  and  above 
all  resolutely  to  decline  to  place  the  authority  of  the  Bible  in 
either  scale  of  an  uncertainty.  The  scientific  theory  must  be 
decided  on  its  own  merits,  to  be  investigated  by  the  usual  ways  ; 
and  the  authority  of  the  word  of  God,  which  is  guaranteed  by 
its  own  evidence,  does  not  appear  to  be  greatly  concerned  with 
the  fate  of  evolution." — Oct.  2j. 


A  Mistake  Corrected. 

"The  trouble  began  four  or  five  years  ago,  and  grew  out  of  a 
lecture  and  article  by  Dr.  Woodrow  on  'Evolution,'  in  which  he 
treated  it  as  a  hypothesis,  which  he  said  he  regarded  as  proba- 
bly true.  When  his  views  were  assailed  as  contrary  to  the 
Standards,  he  took  the  ground  that  it  was  not  said  in  the 
Confession  or  Bible  that  Adam  was  formed  of  inorganic  mat- 
ter ;  that  his  soul  may  have  been  a  creation,  and  that  Eve  may 
have  been  created  also.  To  this  it  was  answered  that  such 
limitations  were  unscientific  and  unsatisfactory.  The  contro- 
versy went  on  in  the  press,  the  Board,  and  controlling  Synods, 
and  at  last,  by  order  of  the  Synods,  the  Board  displaced  Dr. 
Woodrow.  •  •  . 

"This  is  perhaps  the  end  of  public  action  in  this  painful  case, 
but  it  does  not  promise  peace.  The  majority  of  Presbyterians 
in  Columbia  claim  that  Dr.  Woodrow  has  been  badly  treated, 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


909 


and  will  so  say  and  say  on  for  some  time  to  come,  and  so  it  will 
be  with  many  in  other  parts  of  the  Church." 

After  speaking  of  being  a  guest  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hersman,  the 
writer  continues : 

"Moreover,  I  had  calls  from  Drs.  Girardeau,  Tadlock,  and 
Mack,  and  much  pleasant  and  profitable  fellowship." 

The  foregoing  paragraphs  are  taken  from  a  letter  written 
from  Columbia  to  the  Cincinnati  Herald  and  Presbyter  by  its 
senior  editor,  the  Rev.  Dr.  J.  G.  Montfort.  We  naturally  felt 
pained  by  the  misrepresentations  there  made,  and  considered 
the  question  whether  or  not  we  ought  to  try  to  correct  them. 
We  concluded,  as  we  have  so  often  before  done  in  like  circum- 
stances, that  it  would  be,  of  no  use.  Hundreds  of  times  similar 
misstatements  have  been  made;  but  no  matter  how  clearly  we 
have  pointed  out  the  errors,  they  have  never  been  corrected. 
Hence  of  late  we  have  given  up  in  despair.  It  is  not  that  there 
is  any  obscurity  in  the  views  which  are  misrepresented ;  so  far 
as  we  can  perceive,  it  is  solely  because  there  are  none  so  blind 
as  those  who  will  not  see. 

But  a  friend  at  a  distance  in  whose  judgment  we  have  very 
great  confidence,  writes  us :  "Did  you  see  Dr.  Montfort's  letter 
from  Columbia  in  the  Herald  and  Presbyter  last  week?  How 
outrageously  he  misstated  your  views.  He  ought  to  be  cor- 
rected, i.  e.,  better  informed.  I  know  it  is  hopeless  to  under- 
take to  correct  all  the  falsehoods  that  appear ;  but  such  as  this 
calls  for  it."  We  yield  to  the  advice  of  our  friend,  and  shall 
briefly  correct  the  most  important  mistake. 

Dr.  Montfort  says:  "When  his  views  were  assailed  as  con- 
trary to  the  Standards,  he  took  the  ground  that  .  .  .  his 
[Adam's]  soul  may  have  been  a  creation,  and  that  Eve  may 
have  been  created  also."  That  is,  when  his  views  were  assailed 
he  yielded  so  far  as  to  admit  that  Adam's  soul  may  have  been 
a  creation,  and  that  Eve  may  have  been  created  also.  No  one 
could  read  Dr.  Montfort's  statement  without  supposing  that 
Professor  Woodrow  had  in  his  Address  maintained  that 
Adam's  soul  was  not  created  and  that  Eve  also  had  not  been 
created,  but  that  afterwards,  when  assailed,  he  was  led  to 
admit  that  both  may  have  been  created.  Now,  the  truth  is  that 
in  the  Address  the  applicability  of  the  doctrine  of  descent  to 


910 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Eve  is  distinctly  denied :  and  as  to  Adam's  soul,  it  is  said :  "As 
regards  the  soul  of  man,  which  bears  God's  image,  and  which 
differs  so  entirely,  not  merely  in  degree,  but  in  kind,  from 
anything  in  the  animals,  I  believe  that  it  was  immediately 
created,  that  we  are  here  [in  the  Scriptures]  so  taught."  The 
same  ideas  were  reiterated  again  and  again,  whenever  these 
points  were  alluded  to.  For  example,  in  the  Southern  Presby- 
terian, August  21,  1884,  speaking  of  the  teachings  of  the 
Address,  we  say :  "As  to  man,  there  is  what  seems  to  the  writer 
very  clear  and  definite  testimony  to  the  effect,  1.  That  man's 
soul,  his  spiritual  nature,  was  immediately  and  not  mediately 
created.  2.  That  Eve  was  not  derived  from  ancestors,  but 
was  miraculously  formed  from  Adam."  "We  confess  that  we 
can  offer  no  scientific  explanation  of  Eve's  creation,  or  of  the 
creation  of  Adam's  spiritual  nature,  any  more  than  we  can  for 
the  creation  of  the  wine  at  Cana  or  any  other  extra-natural 
event.  Science  has  to  do  with  God's  ordinary  methods  and 
with  them  alone.  But  none  the  less  do  we  believe  every  state- 
ment which  God  has  made  in  his  word."  Southern  Presby- 
terian, Sept.  4,  1884.  We  might  multiply  similar  quotations 
indefinitely.  And  yet  Dr.  Montfort  represents  Professor 
Woodrow  as  taking  ground,  "when  his  views  were  assailed", 
that  Adam's  "soul  may  have  been  a  creation,  and  that  Eve  may 
have  been  created  also" !  We  can  hardly  believe  that  Dr. 
Montfort  said  this  of  himself;  it  sounds  more  as  if  he  were 
reciting  some  illogical  "good  logical  inference",  or  some  inten- 
tional misrepresentation  devised  by  cunning  malignity. — Dec.  8. 


Evolution  :  What  It  Is  Not,  and  What  It  Is. 

An  article  with  the  above  title,  recently  published  in  the 
Cornhill  Magazine,  exactly  describes  the  notions  entertained  as 
to  evolution  by  the  "majority"  in  our  Church.  How  its  author 
came  to  write  so  accurate  a  description,  we  can  hardly  tell ;  for 
we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  has  been  reading  the 
"Anti- Woodrow"  discussions  in  the  "majority"  journals  in  this 
region  or  listening  to  the  debates  in  our  General  Assembly  and 
Synods.  But  if  he  has  been  doing  so,  it  is  all  explained.  Still 
on  reflection  we  are  convinced  that  he  has  not ;  for,  if  he  had, 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


911 


he  could  not  have  omitted  all  allusion  to  such  a  gem  of  a  defini- 
tion of  evolution  as  he  would  have  heard  in  the  Assembly  and 
read  in  pamphlet  and  bound  book — that  it  "postulates  the  trans- 
formation of  an  oak,  not  immediately,  but  by  successive 
variations,  into  a  silk-worm,  a  silk-worm  into  a  frog,  and  a  frog 
into  a  man."  Especially  could  he  not  have  omitted  this  when 
he  knew  that  this  gem  was  the  production  of  the  scientific  leader 
of  our  Assembly — the  Rev.  Dr.  George  D.  Armstrong,  who  was 
Professor  of  Geology  in  a  Virginia  College  for  thirteen  years. 

We  have  not  room  for  the  whole  of  the  article,  but  here  are 
a  few  paragraphs : 

"Everything  now-a-days  talks  about  evolution.  Like  elec- 
tricity, the  cholera-germ,  woman's  rights,  the  great  mining 
boom,  and  the  Eastern  question,  it  is  'in  the  air'.  It  pervades 
society  everywhere  with  its  subtile  essence ;  it  infects  small 
talk  with  its  familiar  catchwords  and  its  slang  phrases ;  it  even 
permeates  that  last  strong-hold  of  rampant  Philistianism,  the 
third  leader  in  the  penny  papers.  Everybody  believes  he 
knows  all  about  it,  and  discusses  it  as  glibly  in  his  every-day 
conversation  as  he  discusses  the  points  of  race-horses  he  has 
never  seen,  the  charms  of  peeresses  he  has  never  spoken  to,  and 
the  demerits  of  authors  he  has  never  read.  Everybody  is  aware, 
in  a  dim  and  nebulous  semi-conscious  fashion,  that  it  was  all 
invented  by  the  late  Mr.  Darwin,  and  reduced  to  a  system  by 
Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  don't  you  know,  and  a  lot  more  of  those 
scientific  fellows.  It  is  generally  understood  in  the  best- 
informed  circles  that  evolutionism  consists  for  the  most  part 
in  a  belief  about  Nature  at  large  essentially  similar  to  that 
applied  by  Topsy  to  her  own  origin  and  early  history.  It  is 
conceived,  in  short,  that  most  things  'growed'.  Especially  is  it 
known  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  evolutionists  as  a  body,  we 
are  all  of  us  ultimately  descended  from  men  with  tails,  who 
were  the  final  offspring  and  improved  edition  of  the  common 
gorilla.  That,  very  briefly  put,  is  the  popular  conception  of  the 
various  points  in  the  great  modern  evolutionary  programme. 

"It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  inform  the  intelligent  reader, 
who,  of  course,  differs  fundamentally  from  that  inferior  class 
of  human  beings  known  to  all  of  us  in  our  own  minds  as  'other 
people',  that  almost  every  point  in  the  catalogue  thus  briefly 


912 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


enumerated  is  a  popular  fallacy  of  the  wildest  description. 
Mr.  Darwin  did  not  invent  evolution  any  more  than  George 
Stephenson  invented  the  steam-engine,  or  Mr.  Edison  the 
electric  telegraph.  We  are  not  descended  from  men  with  tails 
any  more  than  we  are  descended  from  Indian  elephants.  There 
is  no  evidence  that  we  have  anything  in  particular  more  than  the 
remotest  fiftieth  cousinship  with  our  poor  relation  the  West 
African  gorilla.  Science  is  not  in  search  of  a  'missing  link'; 
few  links  are  anywhere  missing,  and  those  are  for  the  most 
part  wholly  unimportant  ones.  If  we  found  the  imaginary 
link  in  question,  he  would  not  be  a  monkey,  nor  yet  in  any  way 
a  tailed  man.  And  so  forth  generally  through  the  whole  list  of 
popular  beliefs  and  current  fallacies  as  to  the  real  meaning  of 
evolutionary  teaching.  Whatever  people  think  evolutionary  is 
for  the  most  part  a  pure  parody  of  the  evolutionist's 
opinion.  .  .  . 

"But  society,  like  Gallio,  cared  nothing  for  all  these  things. 
The  evolutionary  principles  had  never  been  put  into  a  single 
big  book,  asked  for  at  Mudie's,  and  permitted  to  lie  on  the 
drawing-room  table  side  by  side  with  the  last  new  novel  and 
the  last  fat  volume  of  scandalous  court  memoirs.  Therefore, 
society  ignored  them,  and  knew  them  not;  the  word  evolution 
scarcely  entered  at  all  as  yet  into  its  polite  and  refined  dinner- 
table  vocabulary.  It  recognised  only  the  'Darwinian  theory', 
'natural  selection',  'the  missing  link',  and  the  belief  that  men 
were  merely  monkeys  who  had  lost  their  tails,  presumably  by 
sitting  on  them.  To  the  world  at  large,  that  learned  Mr. 
Darwin  had  invented  and  patented  the  entire  business,  including 
descent  with  modification,  if  such  notions  ever  occurred  at  all 
to  the  world-at-large's  speculative  intelligence. — April  5,  1888. 


HIS  TEACHING: 


91: 


Argument  Before  the  General  Assembly  at  Balti- 
more, 1888. 


Moderator:  You  have  already,  in  announcing  that  the 
General  Assembly  was  about  to  pass  to  the  consideration  of 
the  cause  now  before  it,  "enjoined  on  the  members  to  recol- 
lect and  regard  their  high  character  as  judges  of  a  court  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  the  solemn  duty  in  which  they  are 
engaged."  It  would  ill  befit  me  to  attempt  to  add  to  the 
solemnity  of  the  announcement  which  you  have  made,  or  to 
utter  one  word  suggesting  a  doubt  that  these  judges  could 
fail  to  act  with  the  impartiality  which  becomes  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  Lord  of  justice  and  of  truth. 

Even  a  heathen  presenting  his  cause  before  a  heathen 
tribunal  has  said  that  wise  judges  will  reflect  that  not  only 
is  power  given,  but  confidence  reposed  in  them ;  that  it  is 
their  duty  to  be  able  to  acquit  a  foe,  to  condemn  a  friend;  to 
consider  not  what  they  wish,  but  what  the  law  and  their 
obligations  demand;  to  inquire  carefully  into  the  law  and 
the  evidence ;  to  banish  from  their  minds  passion,  hatred, 
envy,  and  fear ;  above  all  to  obey  their  conscience ; — con- 
science, which  we  have  received  from  on  high,  from  which 
we  cannot  free  ourselves,  and  which,  if  we  shall  yield  to  its 
dictates  in  our  thoughts  and  our  acts,  will  enable  us  to 
live  without  dread,  and  with  the  highest  honor.  How  much 
more  may  judges  sitting  as  the  representatives  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  be  expected  to  divest  themselves  of  all  preju- 
dices and  passions  which  could  warp  their  judgment,  and  to 
place  themselves  under  the  control  of  that  divinely  bestowed 
inward  monitor  of  which  Cicero  spoke,  and  above  all,  under 
the  guidance  of  that  enlightening  Spirit  of  truth  for  whose 
presence  every  Christian  judge  continually  prays. 

Happily  for  me,  your  judgment,  so  acting,  will  be  based 
solely  upon  the  law  and  the  evidence  now  presented.  As 
our  Rules  provide,  "Nothing  which  is  not  contained  in  the 
'Record'  shall  be  taken  into  consideration  in  the  higher 
court."  You  will  be  guided  by  no  preconceived  opinions  as 
to  the  meaning  of  the  law — the  Scripture  as  interpreted  in 

58 — W 


914 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


the  standards;  whatever  conclusions  you  may  have  pre- 
viously reached,  whatever  views  you  may  have  expressed 
and  maintained,  you  will  now  reexamine  every  part  of  the 
foundations  on  which  they  rest;  and  if  you  see  that  you 
have  erred,  you  will  be  ready,  free  from  pride  of  consist- 
ency or  other  unworthy  motive,  to  render  righteous  judg- 
ment. For  the  facts  in  the  case,  you  will  depend  upon  the 
evidence  now  set  before  you;  and  not  upon  idle  rumor,  or 
upon  tortured  representations  and  caricatures,  or  upon  gar- 
bled extracts,  or  even  upon  so-called  good  logical  inferences 
which  are  utterly  misleading  and  illogical. 

In  accordance  with  these  principles,  may  the  Holy  Spirit 
enable  you  rightly  to  interpret  the  law,  his  sacred  word, 
and  to  gain  an  exact  knowledge  of  the  facts  in  the  case. 

To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony ;  if  they  speak  not  accord- 
ing to  this  word,  it  is  because  there  is  no  light  in  them ! 

You  have  heard  the  "Record  of  the  cause";  therefore  I 
need  not  now  make  a  detailed  statement  of  it. 

In  the  indictment  I  am  charged  with  "teaching  and  pro- 
mulgating opinions  and  doctrines  in  conflict  with  the 
Sacred  Scriptures  ....  opinions  which  are  calculated  to 
unsettle  the  mind  of  the  Church  respecting  the  accuracy  and 
authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  an  infallible  rule  of 
faith."  Of  this  offence  the  Presbytery  of  Augusta,  after  full 
trial,  pronounced  me  innocent.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Synod  of  Georgia  declared  the  judgment  of  the  Presbytery 
to  be  contrary  to  the  evidence  and  the  law,  and  ordered  that 
the  verdict  and  the  judgment  of  the  Presbytery  be  annulled. 
And  now  I  have  come  before  you  as  the  highest  court  of  our 
Church  with  my  complaint,  asking  you  not  to  sustain  the 
Synod's  judgment,  for  the  reason  that  it  is  contrary  to  the 
law  and  the  evidence,  as  I  hope  to  be  able  to  show  you. 

I  bring  this  cause  before  you  not  for  my  own  sake  alone — 
I  have  little  or  no  more  interest  in  the  result  than  any  other 
person  in  the  Church ;  but  I  bring  it  for  your  sakes,  for  the 
sake  of  the  purity  of  your  teachings,  for  the  sake  of  the  souls 
driven  from  accepting  the  gospel  by  false  teachings,  for  the 
sake  of  the  truth  which  God  has  intrusted'  to  us  in  his 
blessed  word. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


915 


Let  me  begin  by  pointing  out  the  nature  of  the  offence 
with  which  I  have  been  charged.  In  our  Book  of  Church 
Order,  by  which  alone  w^e  are  guided  in  our  courts,  in  Par. 
153,  all  "offences"  are  declared  to  be  "either  personal  or  gen- 
eral, private  or  public" ;  you  can  regard  nothing  as  an 
"offence,"  and  therefore  as  "the  proper  object  of  judicial 
process,"  which  does  not  fall  under  one  or  another  of  these 
heads.  Now,  no  one  claims  that  the  offence  with  which 
I  have  been  charged  is  "personal"  or  "private" ;  it  is  "public" 
or  that  "which  is  notorious,"  and  "general,"  having  no  per- 
sonal relation.  "General  offences,"  according  to  Par.  154, 
"are  heresies  or  immoralities  having  no  such  [personal] 
relation,  or  considered  apart  from  it."  My  alleged  offence 
is  therefore  either  "heresy"  or  an  "immorality";  and  since  it 
is  not  an  "immorality,"  it  is  necessarily  "heresy."  Unless 
something  different  from  our  law  and  contradicting  it  is 
taken  as  authority,  it  is  impossible  to  resist  or  deny  this 
conclusion,  that  my  alleged  offence  being  "public"  and  "gen- 
eral," and  not  an  "immorality,"  is  therefore  HERESY. 

I  might  here  rest  my  case,  provided  the  testimony  of 
the  witnesses  is  to  be  regarded ;  for  both  the  witness  for 
the  prosecution,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Girardeau,  and  the  witness  for 
the  defence — who  was  also  the  voluntary  prosecutor,  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Adams — testified  that  they  believed  that  I  was  not 
guilty  of  heresy.  The  former,  Dr.  Girardeau,  was  asked, 
"Did  you  say  that  Dr.  Woodrow's  teachings  were  not 
heresy?"  He  replied,  "I  did."  The  witness  for  the  defence 
— the  prosecutor — Dr.  Adams,  was  asked :  "You  have  said 
that  Dr.  Woodrow  is  not  guilty  of  heresy,  have  you  not?" 
He  replied,  "I  have,  in  the  sense  of  violating  a  fundamental 
doctrine  of  the  Scriptures."  Thus  it  appears,  that,  though 
I  am  charged  with  heresy,  both  the  prosecutor  and  the  wit- 
ness for  the  prosecution  testify  that  I  am  not  guilty  of 
heresy;  surely,  then,  it  would  seem  that  a  verdict  of  not 
guilty  found  in  accordance  with  this  evidence,  ought  not 
to  have  been  disturbed. — -(See  Record,  pp.  9,  15.) 

But  to  return. — An  attempt  has  been  made  to  escape  the 
force  of  the  irresistible  conclusion  that  it  is  heresy  that  is 
charged  in  the  indictment,  by  a  reference  to  Par.  200,  where 


916 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


we  read  that  "heresy  and  schism  may  be  of  such  a  nature  as 
to  warrant  deposition ;  but  errors  ought  to  be  carefully  con- 
sidered, whether  they  strike  at  the  vitals  of  religion,  and  are 
industriously  spread,  or  whether  they  arise  from  the  weak- 
ness of  the  human  understanding,  and  are  not  likely  to  do 
much  injury."  It  has  been  claimed  that  this  makes  a  differ- 
ence between  "heresy"  and  "error,"  and  that  the  indictment 
here  charges  some  "error"  of  far  less  consequence  than 
heresy — or  the  "higher  heresy,"  as  it  has  been  termed,  as 
distinguished  from  technical  "heresy,"  if  it  is  true  that  the 
Book  calls  all  "error"  "heresy."  Examining  Par.  200  for 
yourselves,  you  see  that  the  words  "heresy,"  "schism," 
"errors,"  are  all  used  to  describe  the  same  kind  of  offence, 
while  different  degrees  of  gravity  are  recognised.  The  more 
serious,  the  higher,  may  strike  at  the  vitals  of  religion  and 
may  be  industriously  spread;  while  the  lower,  the  com- 
paratively harmless,  are  such  as  arise  from  the  weakness  of 
the  human  understanding  and  are  not  likely  to  do  much 
injury.  Under  which  of  these  heads  does  my  alleged  offence 
come?  Certainly  not  under  the  latter;  for  the  indictment 
charges  that  my  alleged  errors  are  "calculated  to  unsettle 
the  mind  of  the  Church  respecting  the  accuracy  and  author- 
ity of  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  an  infallible  rule  of  faith," 
which  certainly  is  "striking  at  the  vitals  of  religion";  and 
no  one  of  my  accusers  has  been  kind  enough  to  try  to  lessen 
the  heinousness  of  my  offence  by  suggesting  that  it  arises 
from  the  weakness  of  the  human  understanding.  Can  there 
be  any  higher  heresy,  any  more  deadly  error,  than  that 
which  would  destroy  our  confidence  in  the  Holy  Scriptures? 
If  that  be  destroyed,  not  merely  our  Presbyterian  doctrines, 
but  our  Christianity,  with  all  our  hopes,  all  that  is  most 
precious  to  us  for  time  and  for  eternity — all  are  crushed  out 
of  existence  at  one  fell  blow.  Hence,  as  my  opinions  have 
been  "industriously  spread,"  as  I  cannot  deny,  and  as,  if 
false  as  charged,  they  "strike  at  the  vitals  of  religion,"  they 
clearly  fall  under  the  head  of  the  highest  heresy  and  most 
heinous  error  described  in  our  law. 

Having  now  seen  the  nature  of  the  offence  charged,  it 
may  be  proper  to  institute  the  inquiries  suggested  in  Par. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


917 


1 68  of  the  Book  of  Church  Order:  "Great  caution  ought  to 
be  exercised  in  receiving  accusations  from  any  person  who 
is  known  to  indulge  a  malignant  spirit  towards  the  accused ; 
who  is  not  of  good  character;  who  is  himself  under  censure 
or  process ;  who  is  deeply  interested  in  any  respect  in  the 
conviction  of  the  accused ;  or  who  is  known  to  be  litigious, 
rash,  or  highly  imprudent."  On  this  point  little  will  be 
said.  Yet  it  is  worth  while  to  observe  that  in  his  testimony 
the  voluntary  prosecutor,  Dr.  Adams,  shows  that  he  is  one 
"who  is  deeply  interested  in  the  conviction  of  the  accused" ; 
not  with  that  lofty,  noble,  and  praiseworthy  interest  which 
every  loyal  son  of  the  Church  feels  in  the  conviction  of  an 
offender  "against  the  peace,  unity,  and  purity  of  the  Church, 
and  the  honor  and  majesty  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the 
King  and  Head  thereof,"  which  he  has  accused  me  of  being ; 
but  with  a  deep  interest  in  securing  my  conviction  for  the 
sake  of  the  indirect  result  which  it  would  have  in  removing 
me  from  my  Professorship  in  a  Theological  Seminary. 
Here  is  what  the  prosecutor  says  (Record,  pp.  n,  12,  14)  : 

"Had  he  retired  from  the  Seminary,  I  for  one  was  willing 
that  he  should  pursue  these  investigations  to  the  utmost. 
But  instead  of  that  he  continued  in  the  capacity  of  an  offi- 
cial teacher  of  our  Church,  and  I  had  no  other  alternative 
from  my  sense  of  duty  to  the  Church  of  God  and  to  the 
institution  of  which  I  was  a  director,  but  to  bring  him  before 
this  court. 

"Q.  Did  you  ever  use  words  to  this  effect:  'Dr.  Woodrow 
remains  intact,  and  unless  some  good  angel  persuades  him 
to  tender  his  resignation,  his  case  will  come  before  the 
Augusta  Presbytery.  That  body  will  meet  in  this  city  early 
in  next  year  and  steps  will  be  taken  for  his  trial  upon  the 
merits  of  the  question?  A.  I  did,  O  my  prophetic  soul!" 
*********** 

"O.  Would  I  have  the  authority  to  act  as  an  official 
teacher  in  the  Church  if  I  withdrew  from  the  Seminary?  A. 
Yes. 

"Q.  You  would  then  be  willing  that  I  should  have  author- 
ity to  preach  and  hold  those  doctrines  at  the  same  time?  A. 
Yes." 


918 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


He  testifies  that  he  would  have  been  perfectly  willing  for 
me  to  hold  the  views  which  he  denounces  in  his  indictment, 
to  retain  authority  to  act  as  an  official  teacher  in  the  Church, 
authority  to  preach  while  still  holding  those  doctrines — all 
without  let  or  hindrance  from  him,  provided  only  I  would 
withdraw  from  the  Theological  Seminary,  of  which  he  is  a 
director.  The  accuser  himself  testifies  that  the  accusation 
was  brought,  not  against  the  minister  and  presbyter  for  the 
purpose  of  defending  and  vindicating  God's  truth,  but  solely 
for  the  purpose  of  accomplishing  by  indirection  the  ejection 
of  a  Professor,  which  he  had  previously  made  repeated 
efforts  to  effect  without  success.  Now  when  only  the  min- 
ister and  not  the  professor  is  concerned,  it  is  of  course  but 
natural  that  the  prosecutor  and  those  who  were  cooperating 
with  him  should  seek  to  carry  out  to  the  end  what  was  then 
in  form  proposed,  though  with  another  object  in  view.  But 
I  do  not  think  it  needful  to  say  more  on  this  point,  nor  yet 
to  comment  on  Dr.  Adams's  admission  respecting  himself, 
"that  the  definition  of  the  Book  and  his  general  way  of 
talking  and  thinking  on  this  subject  are  different" — an 
admission  which  is  abundantly  illustrated  and  proved  by  his 
confused  and  self-contradictory  testimony  as  well  as  by  his 
examination  of  his  witness,  Dr.  Girardeau.  But  I  might 
fairly  ask  if  he  was  the  person  to  charge  me  with  teaching 
what  is  in  conflict  with  our  standards  when  he  testifies  that 
he  himself  is  not  guided  by  those  standards.  "Thou  there- 
fore which  teachest  another,  teachest  thou  not  thyself?" 

Turning  now  to  the  indictment,  the  first  part  of  it  is  seen 
to  be  regular  in  form ;  for  in  it  the  thing  charged  constitutes 
an  "offence,"  and  the  proper  test  of  truth  is  appealed  to — the 
Sacred  Scriptures  as  interpreted  in  the  standards. 

But  the  second  part  is  fatally  defective  in  both  particu- 
lars ;  for  the  thing  charged  does  not  constitute  an  offence, 
and  the  test  of  truth  appealed  to  is  not  the  test  specified  in 
our  law.  The  thing  charged  is  something  said  to  be  of  a 
"dangerous  tendency"  and  "calculated"  to  do  harm ;  and  the 
test  to  be  applied  is  that  which  is  "universally  understood 
by  the  Church."  This  might  be  quite  regular  if  we  were 
still  living  under  our  old  law,  but  it  is  not  so  now.  Under 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


919 


the  law  formerly,  an  "offence"  was  not  only  that  "which  is 
contrary  to  the  word  of  God,"  but  also  that  which,  though 
not  sinful,  "may  tempt  others  to  sin,  or  mar  their  spiritual 
edification ;"  and  the  test  was,  not  the  Scripture  merely,  but 
"the  regulations  and  practice  of  the  Church  founded  on 
Scripture."  Comparing  both  the  thing  charged  and  the  test 
appealed  to  in  the  second  part  of  the  indictment  with  these 
quotations  from  the  old  law,  the  resemblance  is  easily  seen. 
But  this  definition  of  "offence"  and  this  test  have  no  place 
in  our  present  law;  they  have  been  entirely  cast  away. 
Now  nothing  is  an  "offence"  except  that  "which  is  contrary 
to  the  word  of  God,"  and  the  sole  test  is  the  "Scripture,  as 
interpreted  in  these  standards."  It  is  true  that  the  prosecutor 
in  his  testimony  claims  that  the  indictment  was  pre- 
pared in  accordance  with  our  Book,  and  says:  "The  Book 
is  quoted  and  chapters  and  sections  referred  to ;"  but  in  fact, 
as  you  will  see  by  looking  for  yourselves,  there  was  no 
shadow  of  foundation  for  his  statement;  for  there  is  no 
where  the  least  reference  to  either  chapters  or  sections. 

Coming  now  to  the  evidence  for  the  prosecution,  an 
examination  of  the  testimony  of  the  witness,  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Girardeau,  shows  that  it  is  not  relevant  to  the  case,  and 
that  so  far  as  it  might  be  supposed  to  have  any  relevancy, 
it  bears  solely  on  the  second  part  of  the  indictment,  which 
has  just  been  shown  to  be  fatally  defective :  that  the  opinion 
that  evolution  is  probably  true  is  of  "dangerous  tendency," 
and  that  it  is  "contrary  to  what  is  universally  understood 
by  the  Church."  He  testifies  indeed  that  I  had  "defined 
my  position  in  regard  to  the  antiquity  of  the  globe,  affirm- 
ing to  be  certainly  true  in  regard  to  that  matter  what  was 
contrary  to  the  historic  sense  of  the  standards :"  and  that  he 
had  also  charged  me  with  contradicting  the  standards  by 
my  view  of  evolution,  though  he  does  not  say  wherein.  I 
suppose  you  would  hardly  look  upon  that  testimony  as  suffi- 
cient to  convict  me.  Then  he  further  testifies  that  at  one 
time  he  "did  not  know  of  any  minister  who  held  the  same 
views"  as  mine ;  that  afterwards  he  met  one  person  who 
agreed  with  me,  and  one  or  two  others  who  seemed  to  lean 
to  my  view ;  that  he  had  seen  in  Lange's  Commentary  a 


920 


DR.  JAME)S  WOODROW. 


view  somewhat  analogous  to  mine,  but  "aside  from  that  he 
could  not  remember  having  encountered  the  same  construc- 
tion of  the  Scripture."  Well,  what  had  all  that  to  do  with 
my  guilt?  What  bearing  could  it  be  supposed  to  have  upon 
the  charges,  unless  indeed  it  was  a  way  of  proving  what  was 
"universally  understood  by  the  Church"?  Then  as  to  the 
dangerous  tendency,  Dr.  Girardeau  testified  that  the  utter- 
ance of  my  views  had  produced  agitation;  that  it  had  led 
him  to  determine,  "in  accordance  with  a  resistless  sentiment 
of  honor  to  resign  his  professorship  in  the  Seminary," 
which  he  did  for  a  time,  while  the  active  exercises  of  the 
Seminary  were  suspended.  He  further  testified  "as  an 
expert"  that  the  "origin  of  the  doctrine  [of  evolution]  is  phil- 
osophical" ;  that  he  had  "no  idea  that  it  originated  in  Christ- 
ian research" ;  but  that  "the  doctrine  of  evolution  has  been 
used  for  infidel  purposes  by  the  majority  of  those  who  hold 
it;"  adding,  "I  do  not  say  Dr.  Woodrow's  hypothesis  has 
been  so  used,"  at  the  same  time  that  the  manifest  design 
was  to  cast  odium  on  "Dr.  Woodrow's  hypothesis."  Now, 
with  such  testimony  as  this,  was  the  Synod  wise  in  thinking 
the  Presbytery  should  have  pronounced  me  guilty?  The 
evident  and  only  object  of  all  this  witness's  testimony,  as 
can  easily  be  seen,  was  to  create  prejudice  against  the 
accused,  by  utterances  wholly  irrelevant  to  the  case;  his 
words  are  those  of  an  interested  advocate;  they  are  the 
vehicle  of  unsustained  charges ;  as,  for  example,  that  the 
accused  "had  inflicted  injuries  on  him  personally" — a  charge 
dressed  in  this  strange  guise :  "I  forgive  the  injuries  he  has 
inflicted  on  me  personally  and  continue  to  pray  for  him  and 
his  as  heretofore" — when  no  injuries  had  been  inflicted.  He 
testifies  to  his  zeal  in  seeking  to  influence  public  opinion 
against  me  by  secret  telegrams  and  otherwise.  He  shows 
his  infirmity  of  memory  by  attributing  to  me  his  own 
words,  thus  {Record,  p.  9)  : 

"Q.  Did  you  ever  say  that  Dr.  Woodrow's  hypothesis  as 
to  Adam  is,  'that  Adam  as  to  his  body  was  born  of  animal 
ancestry'?  A.  Yes,  either  in  the  Address  or  exposition  fol- 
lowing; as  far  as  my  recollection  goes,  he  used  the  expres- 
sion charged  to  him. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


921 


"Q.  Did  Dr.  Woodrow  ever  say  that?  A.  I  do  not  know 
that  he  did." 

"Q.  Did  you  ever  say  that  Dr.  Woodrow's  hypothesis  was 
that  'the  existence  of  Adam's  body  preceded  for  years  the 
formation  of  Eve's  body'  ?  A.  Yes,  as  far  as  I  can  recollect. 

"Q.  Did  I  ever  use  that  expression?  A.  I  do  not  know, 
but  they  are  good  and  logical  inferences." 

He  also  asserts  as  fact  what  he  could  not  know  to  be  true 
as  to  the  use  made  of  the  doctrine  of  evolution  by  the 
majority  of  those  who  hold  it — that  this  majority  have  used 
it  for  infidel  purposes. 

But  he  not  only  misunderstands  and  therefore  misrepre- 
sents my  views  when  he  condemns  them,  but  also  when 
he  agrees  with  them.  For  example,  he  says  in  "The  Sub- 
stance of  Two  Speeches"  delivered  at  Greenville,  S.  C,  page 
13:  "I  admit,  also,  that  Dr.  Woodrow's  principle  that  our 
interpretations  of  the  Bible  must  square  with  the  proved 
truths  of  science  is  perfectly  true."  Moderator,  that  is  not 
only  not  my  principle,  but  it  is  a  principle  which  I  utterly 
repudiate  as  unworthy  of  a  true  believer  in  the  Bible. 
What !  wait  on  science  for  our  interpretations  of  the  word 
of  God,  and  stand  ready  to  change  them  at  her  bidding? 
Never ;  no  right-thinking  loyal  believer  can  ever  consent 
thus  to  subordinate  the  meaning  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures 
to  the  dictates  of  science  or  aught  else.  It  is  true  that 
science  may  put  the  interpreter  on  inquiry-  and  lead  him  to 
reexamine  his  interpretations ;  but  this  reexamination  must 
be  conducted  in  accordance  with  the  principle  set  forth  in 
our  Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  1,  that  "the  infallible  rule  of 
interpretation  of  Scripture,  is  the  Scripture  itself ;  and  there- 
fore, when  there  is  a  question  about  the  true  and  full  sense 
of  any  Scripture  (which  is  not  manifold,  but  one),  it  may 
be  searched  and  known  by  other  places  that  speak  more 
clearly."  Thus  alone  can  the  meaning  of  the  Holy  Script- 
ures be  ascertained;  and  this  is  the  rule  by  which  I  have 
been  guided  in  all  my  attempts  to  interpret  the  Sacred  Vol- 
ume. This  witness,  Dr.  Girardeau,  may  assert,  as  he  has 
done,  that  "The  Church  must  yield,  has  ever  yielded,  an 
interpretation  of  the  Bible  contradictory  to  a  settled  conclu- 


922 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


sion  of  science ;"  and  claim  that  it  is  right  that  it  should 
be  so;  but  let  such  a  principle,  asserting  the  subordination 
of  the  Holy  Spirit's  word  to  aught  else  in  the  universe, 
never  be  attributed  to  me.  Surely  you  cannot  think  the 
Presbytery  should  have  found  me  guilty  on  such  testimony 
from  such  a  witness. 

But  now  dismissing  these  preliminary  matters,  I  ask  you 
to  consider  the  essence  of  the  Synod's  judgment,  against 
which  I  complain :  "That  the  evidence  before  the  Presbytery 
showed  that  the  belief  of  the  said  defendant,  James  Wood- 
row,  D.  D.,  as  to  the  origin  of  the  body  of  Adam,  was  con- 
trary to  the  word  of  God  as  interpreted  in  the  standards  of 
the  Church."  W e  have  already  seen  that  there  was  nothing 
in  the  oral  testimony  before  the  Presbytery  even  tend- 
ing to  sustain  this  judgment;  therefore  the  evidence 
referred  to  must  be  found,  if  anywhere,  in  the  Address, 
editorial  articles,  and  speeches  mentioned  in  the  indict- 
ment, all  of  which  "I  recognise  as  my  own  production" ;  and 
with  regard  to  which  I  repeat  "that  I  do  now  hold  and 
believe  to  be  true  everything  that  is  set  forth  in  any  of 
them." 

I  ask  that  the  Synod's  judgment  be  not  sustained  for  the 
following  reasons: 

I.  Because  it  is  contrary  to  the  law,  in  this,  that  it  implies 
that  the  word  of  God  as  interpreted  in  the  standards, 
teaches  specifically  the  kind  of  matter  employed  in  the 
formation  of  Adam's  body,  the  length  of  time  occupied  in 
the  preparation  of  that  matter,  and  the  mode  in  which  God 
fashioned  it  into  a  human  body. 

And  2.  Because  it  is  contrary  to  the  evidence;  for  since 
the  word  of  God  does  not  teach  anything  as  to  these  par- 
ticulars, but  is  silent  respecting  them,  the  opinions  and  doc- 
trines of  the  complainant  cannot  be  contrary  thereto ;  what- 
ever the  evidence  may  show  the  complainant's  opinions  to 
be,  it  cannot  show  them  to  be  contrary  to  that  which  does 
not  exist. 

I  now  beg  leave  to  lay  before  you  a  summary  of  the  evid- 
ence in  the  case,  in  the  form  of  extracts  from  the  docu- 
ments mentioned  in  the  indictment.    This  is  all  the  more 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


923 


necessary  because  I  have  been  represented  through  num- 
berless channels  as  holding  and  teaching  doctrines  which 
I  utterly  abhor.  Even  some  of  you  may  have  been  misled 
by  such  representations,  and  therefore  I  ask  you  to  listen  to 
what  I  do  believe,  dismissing  from  your  minds  as  no  part  of 
my  belief  whatever  others  may  have  erroneously  imputed  to 
me. 

"The  Bible  does  not  teach  science;  and  to  take  its  lan- 
guage in  a  scientific  sense  is  grossly  to  pervert  its  meaning. 

"Yet  it  is  not  correct  in  any  of  these  cases  to  say  that  the 
language  of  the  Bible  does  not  express  the  exact  truth; 
that  it  is  accommodated  to  the  weakness  of  the  popular 
mind,  to  the  ignorance  of  the  unlearned." — Address,  p.  6. 

"Science  has  to  do  almost  exclusively  with  the  explana- 
tion ;  it  is  interested  in  phenomenal  truths  only  on  account 
of  their  relations  to  each  other ;  while  the  Bible  speaks  solely 
of  the  phenomenal  truths  involved  in  natural  science  for 
their  own  sake,  and  never  for  the  sake  of  the  explanation  of 
them  or  their  scientific  relations  to  each  other." — lb.,  p.  J. 

"I  have  found  nothing  in  my  study  of  the  Holy  Bible  and 
of  natural  science  that  shakes  my  firm  belief  in  the  divine 
inspiration  of  every  word  of  that  Bible,  and  in  the  conse- 
quent absolute  truth,  the  absolute  inerrancy,  of  every 
expression  which  it  contains,  from  beginning  to  end.  While 
there  are  not  a  few  things  which  I  confess  myself  wholly 
unable  to  understand,  yet  I  have  found  nothing  which  con- 
tradicts other  known  truth." — lb.,  p.  8. 

"In  the  Bible  I  find  nothing  that  contradicts  the  belief 
that  God  immediately  brought  into  existence  each  form 
independently;  or  that  contradicts  the  contrary  belief  that, 
having  originated  one  or  a  few  forms,  he  caused  all  the 
others  to  spring  from  these  in  accordance  with  laws  which 
he  ordained  and  makes  operative." — lb.,  p.  14. 

"When  we  reach  the  account  of  the  origin  of  man,  we 
find  it  more  detailed.  In  the  first  narrative  there  is  nothing 
that  suggests  the  mode  of  creating  any  more  than  in  the 
case  of  the  earth,  or  the  plants  and  animals.  But  in 
the  second,  we  are  told  that  'the  Lord  God  formed  man  of 
the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the 


924 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


breath  of  life ;  and  man  became  a  living  soul.'  Here  seems 
to  be  a  definite  statement  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  belief 
that  man,  either  in  body  or  soul,  is  the  descendant  of  other 
organised  beings.  At  first  sight  the  statement,  that  'man 
was  formed  of  the  dust  of  the  ground/  seems  to  point  out 
with  unmistakable  clearness  the  exact  nature  of  the  material 
of  which  man's  body  was  made.  But  further  examination 
does  not  strengthen  this  view.  For  remembering  the  prin- 
ciples and  facts  already  stated,  and  seeking  to  ascertain  the 
meaning  of  'dust  of  the  ground'  by  examining  how  the  same 
words  are  employed  elsewhere  in  the  narrative,  the  sharp 
definiteness  which  seemed  at  first  to  be  so  plainly  visible 
somewhat  disappears.  For  example,  we  are  told  in  one 
place  that  the  waters  were  commanded  to  bring  forth  the 
moving  creature  that  hath  life,  and  fowl  that  may  fly  above 
the  earth;  and  the  command  was  obeyed.  And  yet,  in 
another  place  we  are  told  that  out  of  the  ground  the  Lord 
God  formed  every  beast  of  the  field,  and  every  fowl  of  the 
air.  Now  as  both  these  statements  are  true,  it  is  evident  that 
there  can  be  no  intention  to  describe  the  material  employed. 
There  was  some  sort  of  connexion  with  the  water,  and  some 
with  the  ground ;  but  beyond  this  nothing  is  clear.  Then 
further,  in  the  sentence  which  God  pronounced  upon  Adam, 
he  says :  'Out  of  the  ground  wast  thou  taken ;  for  dust  thou 
art,  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return.'  And  in  the  curse 
uttered  against  the  serpent,  it  was  said:  'Dust  shalt  thou 
eat  all  the  days  of  thy  life.'  Now  Adam,  to  whom  God  was 
speaking,  was  flesh  and  blood  and  bone;  and  the  food  of 
serpents  then  as  now  consisted  of  the  same  substances,  flesh 
and  blood.  The  only  proper  conclusion  in  view  of  these 
facts  seems  to  be  that  the  narrative  does  not  intend  to  dis- 
tinguish in  accordance  with  chemical  notions  different  kinds 
of  matter,  specifying  here  inorganic  in  different  states,  and 
there  organic,  but  merely  to  refer  in  a  general  incidental 
way  to  previously  existing  matter,  without  intending  or 
attempting  to  describe  its  exact  nature.  For  such  reasons  it 
does  not  seem  to  me  certain  that  we  have  a  definite  state- 
ment which  necessarily  conveys  the  first  meaning  mentioned 
touching  the  material  used  in  the  formation  of  man's  body. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


925 


If  this  is  doubtful,  there  would  seem  to  be  no  ground  for 
attributing  a  different  origin  to  man's  body  from  that  which 
should  be  attributed  to  animals :  if  the  existing  animal 
species  wrere  immediately  created,  so  was  man ;  if  they  were 
derived  from  ancestors  unlike  themselves,  so  may  man  have 
been.  Just  so  far  as  doubt  rests  on  the  meaning  of  the 
narrative,  just  so  far  are  wTe  forbidden  to  say  that  either 
mode  of  creation  contradicts  the  narrative.  And  as  the 
interpretation  suggested  may  be  true,  we  are  not  at  liberty 
to  say  that  the  Scriptures  are  contradicted  by  Evolution. 

"As  regards  the  soul  of  man,  which  bears  God's  image, 
and  which  differs  so  entirely  not  merely  in  degree  but  in 
kind  from  anything  in  the  animals,  I  believe  that  it  was 
immediately  created,  that  we  are  here  so  taught ;  and  I  have 
not  found  in  science  any  reason  to  believe  otherwise." — lb., 
pp.  16-18. 

"I  have  now  presented  briefly,  but  as  fully  as  possible 
in  an  address  of  this  kind,  my  views  as  to  the  method  which 
should  be  adopted  in  considering  the  relations  between  the 
Scriptures  and  natural  science,  showing  that  all  that  should 
be  expected  is  that  it  shall  be  made  to  appear  by  interpre- 
tations which  may  be  true  that  they  do  not  contradict  each 
other;  that  the  contents  and  aims  of  the  Scriptures  and  of 
natural  science  are  so  different  that  it  is  unreasonable  to  look 
for  agreement  or  harmony;  that  terms  are  not  and  ought 
not  to  be  used  in  the  Bible  in  a  scientific  sense,  and 
that  they  are  used  perfectly  truthfully  when  they  convey 
the  sense  intended ;  that  on  these  principles  all  alleged  con- 
tradictions of  natural  science  by  the  Bible  disappear;  that  a 
proper  definition  of  Evolution  excludes  all  reference  to  the 
origin  of  the  forces  and  laws  by  which  it  works,  and  there- 
fore that  it  does  not  and  cannot  affect  belief  in  God  or  in 
religion ;  that,  according  to  not  unreasonable  interpretations 
of  the  Bible,  it  does  not  contradict  anything  there  taught  so 
far  as  regards  the  earth,  the  lower  animals,  and  probably 
man  as  to  his  body." — lb.,  p.  29. 

"The  only  thing  that  I  ever  inculcated  upon  any  of  these 
dear  brethren,  whose  faces  I  see  turned  up  towards  me  at 
this  moment,  was  that  there  is  but  one  authority  before 


926 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


which  you  must  bow.  You  must  bow  before  the  Lord  God 
Almighty ;  you  must  accept  his  word ;  you  must  submit  to 
his  control ;  and  beyond  that  you  must  submit  to  no  con- 
trol."— Speech,  p.  10. 

"There  is  not  one  word  here,  not  one  syllable,  which  I 
would  have  changed,  if  I  had  the  power  of  the  entire  Pres- 
byterian Church  in  my  hands  this  moment.  This  expresses 
my  exact  belief  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  of  God ;  and 
in  that  word — though  the  opposite  may  be  charged  again 
and  again,  as  it  has  been  charged — in  that  word  I  find  not 
one  syllable  which  I  disbelieve.  Shall  I  again  be  met  by  the 
taunt,  'So  says  the  Unitarian;  so  the  Arian  of  every  grade'? 
Whether  this  shall  be  repeated  jeeringly  against  me  or  not,  I 
will  say  once  more  that  every  word  of  the  Bible  I  receive  as 
coming  from  the  God  of  all  truth." — lb.,  pp.  13,  14. 

"I  wish,  in  the  next  place,  to  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  it  has  been  constantly  reiterated  that  I  subordinate 
Scripture  to  science.  The  only  answer  that  I  have  for  that 
statement  is  that  it  is  not  true.  I  cannot  give  any  explana- 
tion of  the  matter  except  just  that.  I  say  that  there  is  not  a 
word  that  I  ever  spoke,  wrote,  or  thought,  that  would  bear 
that  construction;  and  any  one  who  has  read  what  I  have 
written  ought  to  know  that  it  is  not  true.  I  have  always 
sought  to  know  what  the  Scriptures  teach  with  regard  to 
any  matter  that  I  was  examining;  and  when  I  have  found 
the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures,  I  have  accepted  that  as  final. 
I  say  again  that  there  is  not  a  syllable  I  ever  uttered,  or  a 
word  I  ever  spoke,  that  could  even  remotely  sanction  any 
such  construction.  When  I  said  that  I  believed  it  to  be 
probably  true  that  Adam's  body  was  included  in  the  method 
of  mediate  creation,  it  was  only  after  I  had  shown  that  it 
might  not  be  inconsistent  with  the  Sacred  Scriptures." — 
lb.,  p.  46. 

"But  is  it  true  that  I  have  ever  taught  that  the  Scriptures 
are  to  be  regarded  as  doubtful  in  even  a  single  word?  No, 
it  is  not.  Every  word  of  it  and  every  syllable  I  have  main- 
tained must  be  received  as  true.  Have  I  ever  taught  any 
doctrine  which  involved  the  giving  up  of  the  federal  head- 
ship of  Adam?    No,  I  say  again." — lb.,  p.  50. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


927 


"You  know,  and  it  would  seem  that  everybody  must 
know,  that  this  genealogy  cannot  have  the  remotest  bear- 
ing on  the  question  as  to  how  it  pleased  God  to  form  the 
body  of  Adam.  Would  Adam  be  less  the  son  of  God  if 
God  formed  him  of  one  substance  rather  than  another? 
Our  venerable  friend  [Dr.  Frierson]  tells  us  that  we  are 
not  certain  about  the  meaning  of  anything  contained  in  the 
Bible.  Still  I  am  persuaded  that  my  friend  and  I  would 
agree  as  to  the  meaning  of  this  genealogy :  that  going  back 
step  by  step  we  at  length  come  to  the  first  great  Cause,  the 
God  and  Father  of  us  all,  the  omnipresent  and  almighty 
God,  the  Source  of  all  being:  the  Framer  of  Adam's  body 
and  the  Father  of  his  spirit,  and,  through  him,  of  all  his 
descendants  to  the  latest  generation." — lb.,  p.  54. 

''This  is  a  question  which  must  be  answered  according  to 
the  evidence  in  the  case.  This  evidence  is  to  be  derived 
from  two  sources :  the  word  of  God,  and  the  works  of  God. 
Both  are  absolutely  truthful ;  but  in  both  are  some  things 
'hard  to  be  understood.'  So  far  as  they  speak  of  the  same 
things  from  the  same  point  of  view,  they  must  agree;  but, 
however  they  speak,  both  being  absolutely  truthful,  they 
cannot  contradict  each  other." — Edit.  Art.,  Aug.  24,  1884. 

"For  reasons  given  in  the  Address,  it  is  thought  that 
God's  word  gives  no  testimony  on  the  subject,  so  far  as  the 
earth  and  the  vegetable  and  animal  kingdoms  are  concerned. 
As  to  man,  there  is  what  seems  to  the  writer  very  clear  and 
definite  testimony  to  the  effect,  1.  That  man's  soul,  his  spir- 
itual nature,  was  immediately  and  not  mediately  created.  2. 
That  Eve  was  not  derived  from  ancestors,  but  was  miracu- 
lously formed  from  Adam.  But  how  is  it  as  to  man's  animal 
nature?  The  first  witness,  as  has  been  seen,  has  made  it 
seem  very  probable  that  the  higher  animals  generally  were 
derived  from  the  lower,  and  this  probability  includes  man 
so  far  as  he  is  an  animal.  Does  the  second  witness  contra- 
dict the  presumption  thus  raised?  It  certainly  seems  to  do 
so.  But  a  careful  examination  of  the  whole  record  makes 
it  very  doubtful.  .  .  .  From  these  considerations  and  those 
presented  in  the  Address,  it  seems  at  least  quite  doubtful 
that  this  witness  testifies  that  man,  so  far  as  he  is  animal, 


928 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


was  formed  in  a  different  way  from  other  animals.  And 
until  this  doubt  is  removed,  it  may  fairly  be  supposed  that, 
so  far  as  he  is  an  animal,  man  was  formed  as  other  animals 
are,  namely,  as  has  been  shown  to  be  most  probable,  by  evo- 
lution. However  he  received  it,  whether  from  inorganic 
dust  or  through  preceding  animals,  it  is  certain  that  Adam, 
like  every  one  of  his  descendants,  had  an  animal  nature 
identical  in  form  and  functions  with  that  of  other  animals." 
—Ib. 

"Hence,  as  is  said  in  the  Address,  God  is  as  truly  the 
Creator  of  each  man  now  living  as  he  was  of  Adam,  what- 
ever the  mode  of  that  creation.  So  if  he  chose  to  create 
his  animal  nature  by  an  'abrupt  transition/  such  as  Professor 
Dana  speaks  of  above,  from  some  previously  existing 
animal  form,  in  accordance  with  what  seems  to  have  been 
his  method  of  deriving  other  forms  from  each  other,  he 
was  as  truly  his  Creator  as  if  he  had  made  him  of  nothing 
or  of  inorganic  dust  of  the  ground." — Ib. 

"The  possible  extent  of  transition  from  form  to  form  is 
no  where  discussed  in  the  Address ;  nor  is  the  rate  at  which 
changes  have  taken  place,  except  that  the  fact  is  stated 
that  under  certain  circumstances  they  take  place  rapidly, 
under  others  slowly  (p.  24).  We  agree  that  'the  transition 
is  so  abrupt.  .  .  that  it  would  properly  ...  be  called  a 
creation;'  but  we  go  further,  and  say  that  in  all  cases, 
whether  the  transition  is  abrupt  or  not,  it  is  still  a  creation, 
according  to  Scripture  usage." — Ib.y  Aug.  28. 

"All  that  needs  to  be  said  touching  these,  is,  1.  That  the 
author  of  the  Address  shows  that  he  believes  just  what  Paul 
did;  2.  That  Professor  Woodrow  does  not  "seem  to  teach 
that  the  first  Adam  was  not  one/  and  hence  these  questions 
are  not  put  to  him;  and,  3.  That  we  should  believe  every- 
thing said  about  the  patriarchs,  Cain  and  Abel,  Enoch, 
Noah,  and  Eve,  and  indeed  everything  else  in  the  Bible  from 
beginning  to  end,  exactly  in  the  sense  in  which  God  intends 
we  shall  believe  his  inspired  word,  so  far  as  he  may  enable 
us  to  discover  what  that  sense  is." — Ib. 

"If  Professor  Woodrow  had  been  framing  a  plan  of  his 
own,  this  suggestion  might  have  weight.    But  as  he  was 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


959 


not,  but  was  seeking  to  know  God's  plan,  it  has  none.  In 
God's  word  he  finds  reason  to  believe  that  there  was  a 
special  divine  intervention  in  the  creation  of  the  spiritual 
nature  of  the  first  man,  Adam,  with  nothing  in  God's  works 
to  contradict  this  view ;  in  God's  works  he  finds  reason  to 
believe  that  the  animal  nature  of  the  first  man,  Adam,  may 
have  been  derived  from  other  animals  (he  says  nothing  of 
apes  or  monkeys),  in  accordance  with  what  seems  to  be 
God's  ordinary  plan,  with  probably  nothing  in  God's  word 
to  contradict  this  view.  He  therefore  reverently  believes 
according  to  the  evidence  set  before  him  in  the  word  and 
in  the  works." — lb. 

"The  first  consists  of  quotations  from  the  Scriptures  to 
show  that  the  first  man,  Adam,  and  the  first  woman,  Eve, 
were  individuals,  and  not  races.  As  this  is  precisely  what 
Professor  Woodrow  believes  and  teaches  in  his  Address,  no 
reply  is  needed.  But  we  cannot  forbear  again  expressing 
our  wonder  how  it  came  to  attribute  these  views  to  him, 
when  there  is  no  hint  of  them  in  his  Address,  but  exactly 
the  contrary.  The  misfortune  is  that  the  great  body  of  its 
readers  have  no  means  of  knowing  any  better,  for  they  have 
not  seen  the  Address,  and,  as  before  stated,  it  gives  not  a 
line  of  quotation  from  it." — lb. 

"Q.  '3.  Do  you  believe  that  Adam  appeared  suddenly  on 
the  earth  as  a  miraculous  birth  or  creation  from  some 
inferior  animal  species?'  Ans.  I  believe  that  Adam  as 
Adam,  that  is,  as  a  being  consisting  of  body  and  soul, 
appeared  suddenly  on  the  earth  as  a  miraculous  creation. 
Between  the  hypotheses  that  God  created  man  by  adding 
the  human  soul  to  an  image  of  clay,  and  that  he  created 
him  by  adding  it  to  an  animal  body  which  he  had  prepared 
for  it,  I  regard  the  latter  as  more  probable,  in  the  absence  of 
definite  Scripture  teaching." — lb.,  Oct.  75,  1885. 

On  an  examination  of  all  the  evidence,  I  think  you  will 
find  this  to  be  a  fair  outline  of  what  I  have  held  and  taught. 

The  complainant,  equally  with  the  respondent  and  every 
member  of  this  General  Assembly,  recognises  the  supreme 
authority  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  in  deciding  what  is  truth. 
He  believes  and  teaches,  and  has  always  believed  and 


59— w 


930 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


taught,  as  the  evidence  shows,  the  truth  of  whatever  is 
"either  expressly  set  down  in  Scripture,  or  by  good  and 
necessary  consequence  may  be  deduced  from  Scripture; 
unto  which  nothing  at  any  time  is  to  be  added,  whether 
by  new  revelations  of  the  Spirit,  or  traditions  of  men."  He 
further  recognises  the  standards  as  containing  the  authori- 
tative interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  in  this  case  and  in 
every  case  in  our  Church  courts.  But  he  recognises,  and 
you  should  recognise,  nothing  else  as  authoritative,  whether 
it  may  be  the  opinion  of  wise  and  good  men  in  the  Church 
in  this  or  other  ages,  even  though  they  may  be  opinions 
universally  received,  or  the  opinions  and  in  thesi  deliver- 
ances of  the  predecessors  of  this  General  Assembly,  how- 
ever eminent  their  members  may  have  been  for  understand- 
ing, for  expository  power,  and  for  true  godliness. 

As  the  evidence  shows,  I  hold  all  my  opinions  and  beliefs, 
without  exception,  subject  to  the  teachings  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures;  but  subject  to  nothing  else.  Whenever  I  shall 
discover  that  any  belief  of  mine  is  contrary  to  aught  either 
expressed  or  implied  in  the  word  of  God,  I  will  instantly 
renounce  it;  not  with  pain  or  regret,  but  with  joy  that  I 
shall  have  been  delivered  from  the  darkness  of  error,  and 
brought  one  step  nearer  the  blissful  enjoyment  of  the  full 
undimmed  light  of  God's  truth.  As  everywhere  appears  in 
this  evidence,  I  so  hold  my  opinions  as  to  the  probable 
origin  of  Adam's  body.  I  regard  this  question  as  an  open 
one  for  the  student  of  natural  history  only  provided  the 
Scriptures  are  silent  respecting  it.  If  they  speak  on  the 
question,  then  it  is  settled  for  me.  I  hold  an  opinion  con- 
cerning it  as  a  student  of  natural  history,  only  provided 
the  Scriptures  are  silent  and  do  not  settle  it. 

Provided  the  Scriptures  are  Silent  ; 

on  that  pivot,  and  that  alone,  turns  the  whole  controversy — 
I  claiming  that,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  the  Scriptures  are  silent. 

My  belief  as  to  the  origin  of  the  first  man's  body,  it  is 
therefore  clear,  cannot  be,  is  not,  and  does  not  profess  to 
be,  a  belief  based  on  the  Scriptures,  or  to  be  the  result  of 
an  exposition  of  the  Scriptures  set  up  as  a  rival  to  the 
exposition  framed  by  those  who  condemn  me ;  but  it  is 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


931 


solely,  exclusively,  the  result  of  the  studies  of  the  natural 
history  student;  the  studies  of  one  who  seeks  to  know 
something  of  the  wisdom  and  skill  and  power  of  God  in 
his  kingdom  of  nature,  as  well  as  of  his  goodness  and 
mercy  and  loving  kindness  in  his  kingdom  of  grace. 

I  do  not  intend  to  discuss  before  you  the  question  whether 
my  belief  as  to  the  probable  origin  of  man  is  true  or  false, 
viewed  as  a  question  in  natural  history.  With  that  you 
have  nothing  to  do,  as  a  Church  court  you  can  have  nothing 
to  do.  You  are  not  in  the  least  concerned  with  its  truth  or 
falsehood.  The  only  question  you  may  consider  is  whether 
or  not  it  is  contrary  to  the  word  of  God ;  if  proved  contrary 
thereto,  it  is  thereby  proved  false  to  you  and  equally  so  to 
me;  if  not  contrary  thereto,  because  of  the  silence  of  the 
word  on  the  subject,  your  interest  in  it,  your  concern  with 
it,  your  right  as  a  Church  court  to  touch  or  handle  it  in 
any  way,  is  at  an  end. 

It  would  be  incorrect  to  say  that  it  is  your  right  and 
duty  to  inquire  into  its  truth  or  falsehood,  because,  if 
proved  to  be  false,  it  is  thereby  proved  to  be  contrary  to 
the  word  of  God;  and  because,  if  proved  to  be  true,  you 
must  force  your  interpretation  of  Scripture  into  agreement 
with  it,  whatever  amount  of  wresting  may  be  needed, 
according  to  the  pernicious  doctrine  maintained  by  the  wit- 
ness before  quoted,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Girardeau.  For  neither  of 
these  propositions  is  true;  for,  i.  There  are  numberless  false 
doctrines  which  have  been  maintained  in  the  name  of 
science  which  yet  contradict  nothing  in  the  Scriptures;  as, 
for  example,  the  doctrine  that  the  sun  and  stars  revolve 
around  a  fixed,  immovable  earth.  And  2.  There  are  true 
scientific  doctrines,  which,  if  applied  in  certain  cases,  are 
directly  contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  and  therefore,  though 
true,  cannot  be  so  applied  consistently  with  the  truth.  For 
example,  we  say,  and  we  rightly  say,  that  the  doctrine  of 
gravitation  is  true,  and  that  as  a  consequence  iron  sinks  in 
water.  And  yet  the  Scriptures  tell  us  that  once  "the  iron 
did  swim."  Now  does  our  belief  in  gravitation  require  us 
to  deny  this  Bible  statement?  Just  so  in  this  case:  if  one 
believes  that  the  doctrine  of  descent  with  modification  is 


932 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


probably  true,  for  reasons  presenting  themselves  to  him  as  a 
student  of  natural  history,  he  will  be  likely  to  apply  the 
doctrine  to  the  human  body,  as  well  as  to  other  animal 
bodies.  But  if,  in  a  book  which  he  knows  to  be  true,  he  finds 
an  account  of  the  formation  of  a  human  body  otherwise 
than  by  descent,  what  will  he  do?  He  will  do  exactly  as  he 
did  when  he  believed  that  "the  iron  did  swim."  In  that 
case  he  did  not  give  up  his  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  gravita- 
tion as  God's  general  plan  or  method  of  controlling  the 
relations  between  water  and  iron  as  his  ordinary  or  natural 
law ;  but  he  believed  not  merely  that  the  Almighty  God  can 
change  those  relations,  and  cause  the  iron  and  the  water  to 
act  towards  each  other  in  an  extraordinary  way,  but  that  on 
the  occasion  in  question  he  did  change  them.  So  as  to  the 
first  woman's  body — while  he  may  believe  that  God's  ordin- 
ary method  of  originating  species  is  through  descent  with 
modification,  he  will  believe  that  God  did  not  form  the  first 
woman's  body  in  that  ordinary  way,  but  in  an  extraordinary 
way,  in  a  way  different  from  that  in  which  he  formed  the 
first  man's  body  or  any  other  human  body  from  that  day  to 
this.  And  no  stream  of  sneers  from  the  unreasoning  and  the 
unreasonable,  no  amount  of  railing  at  him  as  unscientific 
and  inconsistent  with  himself,  will  shake  him  in  his  belief. 
For  while  he  yields  to  the  evidence  before  him  in  God's 
works  as  to  God's  ordinary  method,  he  also  believes  that  God 
can  produce  the  same  results  by  an  extraordinary  method, 
and  he  further  believes  God's  own  statement  in  his  own 
word,  that  in  framing  the  body  of  our  first  mother  he  did 
adopt  an  extraordinary  method.  So  further,  one  may  be- 
lieve that  the  doctrine  of  evolution  describes  God's  ordinary 
law,  and  yet  believe  that  Adam's  body  was  formed  instan- 
taneously and  immediately  of  inorganic  matter,  provided  he 
has  reason  to  believe  that  God  so  teaches  in  his  word. 

My  belief  in  science  is  not  inconsistent  with  my  belief  in 
miracles;  which  is  the  same  as  saying  that  belief  in  God's 
ordinary  methods  is  not  inconsistent  with  a  belief  that  he 
can  resort  and  has  resorted  to  extraordinary  methods  of 
accomplishing  his  will.  But  in  any  given  instance  we  must 
believe  that  he  has  employed  his  ordinary  methods  until 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


933 


the  contrary  is  shown.  The  presumption  is  always  in  favor 
of  the  ordinary;  the  burden  of  proof  is  always  upon  those 
who  assert  the  extraordinary. 

Hence  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  as  to  the 
truth  of  evolution.  All  who  are  engaged  in  this  case  agree 
as  to  the  supreme  authority  and  the  inerrancy  of  the  Script- 
ures; the  only  question  is  as  to  the  interpretation  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  particularly  of  these  five  words — "the  dust 
of  the  ground."  Do  these  words  describe  the  exact  kind  of 
matter  which  God  employed  in  the  formation  of  man,  at 
the  moment  when  he  began  the  specific  act  of  formation, 
and  the  changes  through  which  that  matter  had  passed 
since  it  was  called  into  existence,  and  the  length  of  time 
between  its  exnihilation  and  the  reception  of  the  "breath  of 
life"?  Or  are  these  points  left  undecided,  so  that  no  hypo- 
thesis respecting  them  which  recognises  God  as  the  former 
of  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  whether  mediately  or 
immediately,  gradually  or  instantaneously,  can  be  in  conflict 
with  the  teaching  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures? 

What,  then,  is  the  meaning  of  "dust"  or  "dust  of  the 
ground,"  as  used  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures?  Perhaps  before 
we  undertake  to  answer  this  question  definitely,  it  may  be 
well  to  examine  the  interpretations  of  the  class  to  which 
it  belongs,  and  thus  learn  the  methods  to  be  pursued  and 
the  danger  of  adopting  wrong  methods.  Shall  we  proceed 
on  the  assumption  that  we  are  expounding  a  scientific  docu- 
ment, where  every  term  employed  is  to  be  understood  in  its 
current  scientific  sense ;  and  that  when  we  have  ascertained 
this  sense,  we  have  determined  its  meaning  wherever  it 
occurs?   Let  us  test  this  assumption. 

We  are  told  in  Genesis  1 :16,  that  God  made  two  great 
lights ;  the  greater  light  to  rule  the  day,  and  the  lesser  light 
to  rule  the  night ;  he  made  the  stars  also.  Applying  the 
principle  just  mentioned,  this  passage  was  at  one  time  "uni- 
versally understood  by  the  Church"  as  teaching  the  relative 
sizes  of  the  sun,  the  moon,  and  the  stars — that  the  sun  is 
the  largest  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  that  the  moon  is  next  in 
size,  while  the  stars  are  insignificant  in  size  when  compared 


934 


DR.  JAMKS  WOODROW. 


with  either.  Are  you  willing  to  say  that  that  is  what  God 
here  teaches  us? 

Again,  in  Isaiah  n  :i2,  you  find  the  "four  corners  of  the 
earth"  mentioned,  also  in  Revelation  7:1;  and  other  con- 
firmatory passages  might  be  referred  to.  Here  you  are 
taught  that  the  earth  is  a  rectangular  figure,  as  was  once 
"universally  understood"  and  was  taught  by  learned  geo- 
graphers who  interpreted  such  expressions  in  the  Script- 
ures scientifically. 

In  Exodus  20:4,  we  read  of  the  "heaven  above,"  "the 
earth  beneath,"  and  "the  water  under  the  earth";  in  Psalm 
24:2,  that  the  Lord  hath  founded  the  earth  "upon  the 
seas,  and  established  it  upon  the  floods";  in  Psalm  130:6, 
we  are  exhorted  to  give  thanks  "to  him  that  stretched  out 
the  earth  above  the  waters"; — all  which  passages,  inter- 
preted scientifically,  prove  that  the  earth  rests  upon  water 
as  its  foundation,  so  that  when  the  earth  is  rent,  waters  rush 
forth — an  interpretation  confirmed  by  the  allusions  in  Gen- 
esis 7  and  8,  to  the  "fountains  of  the  great  deep"  as  one  of 
the  sources  of  the  flood.  Do  you  regard  the  Bible  as  so 
teaching? 

In  Ps.  104:5,  we  read,  "Who  laid  the  foundations  of  the 
earth,  that  it  should  not  be  removed  forever;"  in  Ps.  119: 
90,  "Thou  hast  established  the  earth,  and  it  abideth;"  in 
Eccl.  1  4,  5,  "The  earth  abideth  for  ever.  The  sun  also 
ariseth,  and  the  sun  goeth  down,  and  hasteth  to  his  place 
where  he  arose;"  and  so  in  many  other  passages,  "we  are 
taught,"  says  Turrettin,  whose  work  on  Theology  is  or 
was  recently  used  as  a  text-book  at  one  of  our  theological 
seminaries,  "that  the  sun  and  moon  move  in  the  heavens 
and  revolve  around  the  earth,  while  the  earth  remains  at 
rest."  And  to  this  agree  Luther,  and  Calvin,  and  their 
learned  contemporaries  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 
Thus  were  the  Scriptures  "universally  understood  by  the 
Church,"  when  scientifically  interpreted. 

In  Gen.  2:5,  we  read  that  when  God  had  made  "every 
plant  of  the  field  before  it, was  in  the  earth,  and  every  herb 
of  the  field  before  it  grew,"  "the  Lord  God  had  not  caused 
it  to  rain  on  the  earth."   Here  one  interpreting  scientifically 


HIS  TEACHINGS 


935 


must  say  we  are  taught  that  from  the  moment  when  God 
brought  the  earth  into  existence  to  the  day  when  he  was 
about  to  form  man.  not  a  drop  of  rain  had  fallen.  Hence 
those  who  speak  of  fossil-rain  drops  formed  ages  before 
man  was  created  teach  that  which  is  contrary  to  the  Script- 
ures. 

In  Ex. 20:9.  11,  we  read,  "Six  days  shalt  thou  labor;''''  "for 
in  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth.,  the  sea. 
and  all  that  in  them  is;"  and  in  Genesis  1  we  have  a  detailed 
account  of  what  was  done  on  each  day,  and  a  description  of 
the  kind  of  day.  one  which  consisted  of  an  evening  and  a 
morning.  The  plain  scientific  meaning  of  these  statements 
is  that  up  to  144  hours  before  the  evening  of  the  sixth  day, 
there  had  been  no  material  existence — we  cannot  say  in  the 
universe,  for  there  was  no  universe — up  to  that  moment 
God  had  existed  alone.  Very  possibly  some  who  are  now 
listening  to  me  would  insist  that  the  Scriptures  must  be 
scientifically  interpreted  here,  and  that  the  results  of  this 
interpretation  as  just  stated  must  be  accepted  if  we  believe 
the  Bible.  However  that  may  be.  it  is  certainly  an  interpre- 
tation of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  according  to  the  standards. 

The  last  illustration  I  shall  present  has  reference  to  ani- 
mals clean  and  unclean  as  described  in  Lev.  11  and  Deut. 
14.  We  have  in  these  chapters,  more  clearly  than  anv- 
where  else  in  the  Scriptures  perhaps,  a  formal  description 
of  the  various  classes  of  animals,  with  their  specific  differ- 
ences set  forth,  all  just  as  we  would  expect  in  a  work  on 
zoology  or  other  classificatory  science,  where,  if  ever,  the 
terms  must  be  taken  rigorously  in  their  scientific  sense. 
One  class  described  contains  animals  which  ''part  the  hoof,''' 
are  "cloven-footed,'''  and  "chew  the  cud."  From  this  class 
are  excluded  the  camel,  the  coney,  and  the  hare,  because 
they  chew  the  cud,  but  divide  not  the  hoof.  When  we 
examine  these  animals  for  ourselves,  we  would  say  that  the 
camel  indeed  chews  the  cud.  but  that  the  coney  and  the 
hare  do  not.  Is  what  we  see  contrary  to  the  Scriptures? 
Most  certainly,  if  the  Scriptures  are  to  be  interpreted  scien- 
tifically. But  this  is  not  all.  In  the  class  of  birds  as  here 
given,  we  have  "the  eagle,'''  "and  the  swan.''  "and  the  stork, 


936 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


the  heron  after  her  kind,  and  the  lapwing,  and  the  bat." 
Is  the  bat  a  bird?  If  you  examine  it,  you  will  see  that  it 
has  hair  instead  of  feathers,  that  it  does  not  lay  eggs  but 
brings  forth  its  young  alive;  in  short,  according  to  the 
nomenclature  of  these  chapters,  that  it  is  not  a  bird,  but  a 
beast.  Shall  we  interpret  scientifically  here?  Then  fur- 
ther, under  the  head  of  "flying  creeping  things"  we  find 
mentioned  as  those  which  have  four  feet  "the  locust  after 
his  kind,"  "the  beetle  after  his  kind,"  and  "the  grasshopper 
after  his  kind" — all  of  which  are  six-footed  insects  and  not 
four-footed.  Are  these  errors?  Most  assuredly,  if  a  scien- 
tific meaning  is  to  be  given  to  such  terms  when  they  occur 
in  Scripture ;  but  most  assuredly  not  if  we  interpret  aright ; 
not  if  we  see,  as  is  so  plain  when  we  compare  scripture  with 
scripture,  that  the  meaning  which  the  Holy  Ghost  gra- 
ciously designs  to  convey  is  never  scientific,  but  always 
exclusively  moral,  religious,  spiritual;  always  absolutely 
true  in  the  sense  intended;  but  never  true,  when  the  sense 
has  been  distorted  and  perverted  by  the  false  hypothesis 
that  the  words  of  Scripture  are  intended  even  incidentally  to 
convey  scientific  knowledge. 

These  considerations  must  constrain  us  to  approach  the 
examination  before  us  with  the  expectation  that  we  shall 
not  find  natural  science  taught  us,  or  anything  except  moral, 
spiritual,  and  religious  truth.  We  do  not  reject  the  scien- 
tific interpretations  which  have  been  enumerated  because 
we  find  from  outside  considerations  that  they  would  cause 
the  Bible  to  speak  falsely;  we  can  never  consent  that  out- 
side knowledge  shall  "assume  to  control  the  interpretation 
of  the  inspired  word;"  but  we  reject  such  interpretations 
because  they  are  based  on  a  false  principle;  upon  a  princi- 
ple proved  to  be  false  by  the  only  "infallible  rule  of  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture,"  namely  "the  Scripture  itself." 

Let  us,  then,  honestly  and  fairly  apply  this  infallible  rule 
to  the  "question  about  the  true  and  full  sense  of"  the  term 
the  "dust  of  the  ground"  which  "may  be  searched  and 
known  by  other  places  that  speak  more  clearly." 

The  first  occurrence  of  the  words  "out  of  the  ground"  to 
be  noticed  is  in  Gen.  2:19,  where  we  are  told  that  "out  of 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


937 


the  ground  the  Lord  God  formed  every  beast  of  the  field  and 
every  fowl  of  the  air."  But  while  it  is  said  in  Gen.  1 124, 
"Let  the  earth  bring  forth  .  .  .  the  beast  of  the  earth  after 
his  kind,"  we  read  in  verse  20,  "Let  the  waters  bring  forth 
abundantly.  .  .  .  fowl  that  may  fly  above  the  earth."  If 
the  intention  is  to  point  out  the  material  used,  here  might 
seem  to  be  a  serious  discrepancy,  since  the  material  specified 
in  one  place  is  the  "ground"  and  in  the  other  the  "waters." 

In  Gen.  3  119,  the  term  "dust"  is  applied  both  to  that  to 
which  Adam  was  to  return,  and  to  that  which  as  a  living 
man  he  was.  In  Gen.  3:14,  it  is  the  serpent's  food:  "Dust 
shalt  thou  eat  all  the  days  of  thy  life."  The  "ground"  also  is 
that  which  Adam  was  sentenced  to  eat — Gen.  3:17 — 
"Cursed  is  the  ground  for  thy  sake ;  in  sorrow  shalt  thou  eat 
(of)  it  all  the  days  of  thy  life."  "0/  it,"  the  passage  reads ;  but 
the  word  "of"  is  an  expository  term  introduced  by  the  trans- 
lators, as  they  themselves  tell  us.  In  verse  23,  "The  Lord 
God  sent  him  forth  ...  to  till  the  ground  from  whence  he 
was  taken."  Here  then  in  this  chapter  we  have  the  "dust" 
that  which  the  living  man  Adam  was,  that  to  which  he  was 
to  return,  and  that  of  which  the  serpent  was  to  eat ;  and  the 
"ground"  that  from  which  Adam  was  taken,  and  that 
which  he  was  to  eat  all  the  days  of  his  life,  and  that  which 
he  was  to  till.  Is  this  such  usage  as  to  lead  us  to  conclude 
that  the  terms  "dust"  and  "ground"  necessarily  mean  inor- 
ganic matter,  or  that  there  is  any  intention  to  decide  a 
chemical  question  as  to  the  kind  of  matter? 

Observe  next,  even  on  the  supposition  that  the  meaning 
of  "dust  of  the  ground"  is  a  substance  derived  from  the  pul- 
verisation of  matter  found  in  the  earth — inorganic,  if  you 
please — whether  it  is  at  all  certain  from  Scripture  usage 
that,  when  an  animal  body  is  said  to  be  made  of  dust,  or 
clay,  or  the  ground,  it  has  been  immediately  transformed 
from  the  inorganic  state  into  the  animal  frame. 

In  Job  33:6,  we  read,  "I  also  am  formed  out  of  the 
clay."  This  is  a  reference  to  Gen.  2:7;  and  it  asserts  that 
what  is  true  of  Adam  is  true  of  the  speaker.  In  what  sense 
was  Elihu  formed  out  of  clay?  He  and  his  ancestors  up  to 
Adam  and  Eve  certainly  could  not  have  been  truly  said  to 


938 


DR.  JAMES  W00DR0W. 


have  been  formed  of  clay,  except  in  the  sense  that  they  were 
derived  by  many  intermediate  steps  from  that  which  itself 
was  derived  from  clay.  But  this  last  derivation — was  it 
necessarily  immediate?  If  Elihu's  body  could  be  said  to  be 
formed  of  clay  when  many  generations  had  certainly  inter- 
vened between  him  and  the  clay,  can  you  be  quite  sure  that 
the  same  thing  was  not  true  of  Adam's  body  when  its  forma- 
tion is  described  in  the  same  terms?  I  do  not  ask  you  to 
believe  that  the  same  steps  did  intervene;  but  can  you  be 
so  certain  that  they  did  not  as  to  pronounce  me  guilty  of 
holding  that  which  is  contrary  to  the  Scriptures  if  I  believe 
that  it  may  have  been  so  ? 

In  Eccl.  3 :20,  we  read :  "All  are  of  the  dust,  and  all  turn 
to  dust  again."  And  in  Eccl.  12:7,  speaking  of  men  gen- 
erally, "Then  shall  the  dust  return  to  the  earth  as  it  was." 
Was  when  ?  Was  in  the  case  of  other  men  certainly  not  this 
side  of  Adam.  Here  the  questions  asked  a  moment  ago  may 
be  repeated,  both  as  to  the  passage  "all  are  of  the  dust,"  and 
as  to  the  last  quoted. 

Observe  again,  the  form  of  Adam's  sentence :  "Dust  thou 
art ;  and  unto  dust  shalt  thou  return" ;  and  the  words  of  the 
Preacher:  "All  are  of  the  dust,  and  all  turn  to  dust  again." 
Is  this  returning  and  turning  to  dust  again  immediately? 
Does  the  human  flesh  and  blood  turn  immediately  and 
instantaneously  to  dust?  Or  are  there  not  many  interme- 
diate steps  before  the  inorganic  state  is  reached?  Is  it  not 
absurd  to  think  that  the  Bible  teaches  anything  whatever  as 
to  the  steps  from  the  human  body  to  the  dust?  And  I  may 
ask  is  it  any  less  absurd  to  think  that  the  Bible  teaches  any- 
thing as  to  the  steps  from  the  dust  to  the  human  body? 
And  further,  that  you  may  see  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  teach- 
ing nothing  whatever  as  to  the  steps  that  may  lie  between 
the  beginnings  and  the  ends  of  which  he  tells  us,  observe 
what  was  said  to  the  serpent:  "I  will  put  enmity  between 
thee  and  the  woman,  and  between  thy  seed  and  her  seed;  it 
shall  bruise  thy  head,  and  thou  shalt  bruise  his  heel."  The 
woman,  recalling  this  when  Cain  was  born,  exultingly 
exclaimed,  "I  have  gotten  a  man  from  the  Lord;"  suppos- 
ing, as  commentators  tell  us,  that  this  new  born  one  was  the 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


939 


seed  which  should  bruise  the  serpent's  head.  But  Eve  made 
the  same  mistake  that  my  prosecutor  and  the  respondent 
are  making:  she  vainly  thought  that,  because  no  interme- 
diate steps  were  mentioned,  none  would  be  taken;  she 
looked  for  immediate  and  instantaneous  results,  instead  of 
perceiving  the  truth  that  thousands  of  years  would  pass 
with  generation  after  generation,  before  her  seed  would  be 
born  of  the  virgin  Mary,  Jesus,  who  would  be  bruised  on 
the  cross  of  Calvary  when  through  death  he  destroyed  him 
that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil.  Are  you 
ready  to  decide  that,  while  in  every  other  case  there  may 
have  been  numberless  intermediate  steps,  in  the  formation 
of  Adam's  body  there  can  have  been  none  ? 

These  passages  dearly  show  that  it  is  in  accordance  with 
Scripture  usage  to  call  that  dust  and  clay  which  has  been 
derived  from  dust  and  clay  by  an  indefinite  number  of  inter- 
vening steps,  to  speak  of  the  human  body  as  formed  of  the 
clay,  when  it  is  formed  of  that  which  was  remotely  derived 
from  clay ;  and  therefore  that  we  have  no  right  to  say  in  any 
case  where  these  expressions  are  used,  that  the  derivation 
was  immediate  and  not  mediate,  was  instantaneous  and  not 
gradual. 

To  this  it  may  be  replied  that  while  indeed  this  is  true  as 
to  Elihu  and  other  human  beings  since  Adam,  it  is  not 
true  as  to  him;  that  we  are  called  dust  because  we  are 
derived  from  Adam  who  was  formed  immediately  from  dust. 
But  how  do  wre  know  that?  The  reply  perhaps  would  be, 
Because  God  tells  us  of  no  derivation  in  Adam's  case.  But 
are  we  told  of  any  derivation  or  intermediate  steps  in 
Elihu's  case?  Is  nothing  possibly  true  that  God  has  not 
revealed  in  his  word?  It  is  indeed  common  to  make  the 
limits  of  our  knowledge  the  limits  of  possible  truth;  to 
assume  that  what  we  do  not  know  does  not  exist  and  can- 
not be  true.  We  may  hardly  be  willing  to  put  this  maxim 
in  words;  but  is  not  that  maxim  the  sole  ground  for  the 
belief  that  the  steps  of  derivation  going  backwards  from 
ourselves  to  Adam  and  Eve  necessarily  stopped  with  Adam? 
Because  forsooth  we  do  not  know  that  they  continued  far- 
ther!  And  is  not  the  belief  that  they  may  have  continued 


940 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


farther  before  we  reach  the  actual  dust  and  clay,  contrary 
rather  to  this  vainglorious  maxim  of  ours  than  to  the  teach- 
ings of  the  word  of  God? 

But  it  may  be  said  that  the  question  you  have  to  decide 
is  not  whether  my  belief  is  contrary  to  the  word  of  God, 
but  contrary  to  the  word  of  God  as  interpreted  in  the 
standards  ;  or  as  it  has  been  expressed  by  the  witness  for  the 
prosecution,  contrary  not  to  the  "real  and  absolute  mean- 
ing of  the  Bible,"  but  to  its  "relative  and  interpretative 
sense" ;  that  is,  not  to  what  the  Bible  does  mean,  but  to  what 
it  does  not  mean.  I  do  not  admit  that  there  can  be  any 
difference  in  this  case  between  the  Bible  and  the  Bible  as 
interpreted  in  the  standards,  as  I  shall  presently  show; 
but  I  wish  first  to  press  upon  your  attention  the  following 
solemn  warning  from  the  same  witness,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Girar- 
deau : 

"Of  that  illimitable  system  of  truth  revealed  to  us  in  the 
Scriptures,  we  certainly  possess  a  part  under  the  illumina- 
tion of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  but  it  would  be  the  climax  of  arro- 
gance to  claim  that  we  know  the  whole.  Hence  the  possi- 
bility of  growth  in  our  subjective  apprehension  of  doctrines 
which  in  themselves  are  unchangeable.  Hence  the  duty  of 
conforming  our  knowledge  more  and  more  to  the  highest 
and  absolute  meaning  of  the  Bible." — Speeches,  p.  12. 

"I  trust  that  the  Synod  will  not  undertake  to  decide  and 
pronounce  upon  the  question  whether  Dr.  Woodrow's  view 
contradicts  the  Bible  in  its  absolute,  infallible  sense,  for 
reasons  which  I  will  briefly  state. 

"In  the  first  place,  our  knowledge  is  not  sufficient  to 
warrant  us  in  dogmatising  upon  that  question.  In  order  to 
its  dogmatic  decision  we  would  require  to  possess  perfect 
certainty  as  to  the  correctness  of  our  interpretation  of  the 
Scriptures  upon  this  point,  and  perfect  certainty  as  to  our 
interpretation  of  nature  in  regard  to  it.  But  as  we  are  not 
gifted  with  infallibility  in  either  respect,  our  liability  to  err 
should  check  the  utterance  of  an  authoritative  judgment  in 
the  premises. 

"In  the  second  place,  it  becomes  us  to  heed  the  cautions 
furnished  by  the  history  of  the  Church.   It  cannot  be  denied 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


941 


that  she  has  sometimes  grievously  blundered  in  pronounc- 
ing determinative  judgments  upon  questions  of  science, 
with  reference  to  which  her  policy  was  to  be  silent.  There 
is  always  the  danger  of  such  mistakes,  the  consequences  of 
which  must  needs  be  deplorable.  Should  the  Church  com- 
mit them,  she  is  subjected  to  the  humiliation  of  recanting 
her  error,  and  there  follows  a  disastrous  reaction  upon  the 
trustworthiness  of  her  whole  teaching.  Confidence  in  her 
authority  as  a  spiritual  guide  is,  at  least  to  some  extent, 
impaired. 

"In  the  third  place,  should  we  decide  that  Dr.  Woodrow's 
view  contradicts  the  Bible  in  its  absolute  sense,  we  would 
not  only  declare  that  it  ought  not  to  be  taught  in  a  Presby- 
terian school,  but  that  no  Christian  man  has  a  right  to  hold 
it.   Are  we  prepared  to  do  that?" — lb.,  p.  15. 

To  these  weighty  and  true  words,  this  Assembly  will  do 
well  to  take  heed. 

Happily  in  this  case  we  are  not  called  on  to  choose 
between  the  Sacred  Scriptures  and  the  standards,  if  in  other 
instances  they  differ;  for  if  now  you  turn  to  the  standards, 
you  will  see  that  they  do  not,  on  the  point  in  question,  inter- 
pret the  words  of  Scripture,  they  only  repeat  them.  Read 
first  the  Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  4,  Sec.  2 : 

"II.  After  God  had  made  all  other  creatures,  he  created 
man,  male  and  female,  with  reasonable  and  immortal  souls, 
endued  with  knowledge,  righteousness,  and  true  holiness, 
after  his  own  image." 

Here  certainly  there  is  no  interpretation. 

Read  next  Question  and  Answer  17  in  the  Larger  Cate- 
chism, and  also  Question  and  Answer  10  in  the  Shorter 
Catechism : 

"Q.  17.  How  did  God  create  man?  A.  After  God  had 
made  all  other  creatures,  he  created  man,  male  and  female; 
formed  the  body  of  the  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and 
the  woman  of  the  rib  of  the  man ;  endued  them  with  living, 
reasonable,  and  immortal  souls;  made  them  after  his  own 
image,  in  knowledge,  righteousness,  and  holiness,  having 
the  law  of  God  written  in  their  hearts,  and  power  to  fulfil 
it,  with  dominion  over  the  creatures ;  yet  subject  to  fall." 


942 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


"Q.  10.  How  did  God  create  man?  A.  God  created  man 
male  and  female,  after  his  own  image,  in  knowledge,  right- 
eousness, and  holiness,  with  dominion  over  the  creatures." 

What  is  there  but  repetition  of  the  words  of  Scripture 
here,  so  far  as  the  formation  of  the  body  of  Adam  is  con- 
cerned? No  argument  can  be  needed  to  make  this  any- 
clearer. 

But  you  will  be  told  that  while  there  is  no  formal  inter- 
pretation, we  must  understand  the  standards  in  the  historic 
sense;  that  is,  you  must  understand  the  words  used  in  the 
sense  in  which  they  were  understood  by  the  Westminster 
Assembly;  you  are  bound  to  do  this  by  fidelity  to  your 
ordination  vows. 

Now,  in  the  first  place,  the  words  "dust  of  the  ground" 
have  no  historic  sense.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  ques- 
tion as  to  their  meaning  was  ever  considered  by  the  West- 
minster divines.  If  it  had  been,  perhaps  they  might  have 
given  their  interpretation.  Their  silence  proves  that  the 
question  had  not  even  been  raised,  or  else  that  these  divines 
regarded  the  Scriptures  as  silent  respecting  it.  The  ques- 
tion of  the  origin  of  each  human  soul  had  for  centuries  been 
under  discussion,  and  it  was  regarded  as  having  a  most 
important  bearing  on  theological  doctrines.  The  majority 
of  the  orthodox  had  strenuously  maintained  that  God 
creates  each  soul  directly  and  immediately,  and  adds  it  to 
the  body  which  is  naturally  generated,  while  a  few  held  that 
the  human  being  as  a  whole,  both  soul  and  body,  was  pro- 
duced by  generation.  It  might  have  been  supposed  that 
the  Westminster  divines  would  have  spoken  on  this  ques- 
tion ;  but  no ;  they  found  nothing  in  the  Scriptures  deciding 
it,  and  they  were  therefore  silent  respecting  it.  So  it  was 
no  doubt  respecting  the  kind  of  matter  of  which  the  body 
was  formed,  if  they  thought  of  it  at  all.  But  there  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  the  question  occurred  to  them,  or 
to  look  upon  their  silence  as  an  interpretation. 

But,  in  the  second  part  of  the  indictment,  what  is  "univers- 
ally understood  by  the  Church"  is  substituted  for  the 
standards.  While  refusing  to  be  judged  by  such  a  test,  I 
answer  that  even  on  this  low  ground  the  charge  cannot  be 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


943 


sustained.  I  suppose  that,  though  we  can  find  nothing  on 
the  subject  in  our  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms,  we  may 
find  in  a  very  widely  taught  "Short  (not  Shorter)  Cate- 
chism," by  John  Brown  of  Haddington,  that  which  comes 
very  near  showing  what  is  "universally  understood  by  the 
Church."  The  child  is  asked,  "Of  what  were  you  made?" 
The  answer  is,  "Of  dust."  Now  was  the  child  made  of  dust? 
Yes,  of  "dust,"  as  meaning  that  which  is  derived  from 
dust  after  numberless  changes ;  for  the  matter  of  all  organ- 
ised beings  was  once  inorganic  dust.  If  you  accept  this 
as  what  is  "universally  understood  by  the  Church,"  you 
surely  will  not  condemn  the  Presbytery  of  Augusta  for  not 
convicting  me,  because  I  think  that  perhaps  the  same  word 
when  used  with  reference  to  Adam  has  the  same  meaning 
as  when  used  with  reference  to  you — that  the  dust  of  which 
he  was  formed  had  likewise  passed  through  numberless 
changes. 

John  Brown  may  stand  as  the  representative  of  Presby- 
terian views  for  nearly  a  century  and  a  half.  The  next 
proof  I  submit  that  there  is  no  universal  understanding  such 
as  the  indictment  claims,  is  furnished  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Arm- 
strong, the  coryphaeus  of  the  General  Assembly  two  years 
ago  in  connexion  with  such  matters.  He  tells  us  he  "sees 
no  objection  to  considering  the  dust  spoken  of  in  Gen.  2:7 
as  organic  dust,"  understanding  the  term  as  meaning  "the 
soil  of  the  farmer,  the  humus  of  the  chemist,"  or  "vegetable 
or  animal  matter  reduced  to  a  dry  powder."  Then  pur- 
suing the  "scientific"  method  and  analysing  the  body  of  man 
chemically,  he  concludes  that  "the  similarity  in  ultimate 
composition  between  the  body  of  man  and  that  of  plants 
and  animals  would  seem  to  render  such  a  proposition  alto- 
gether probable."  Then  to  emphasise  the  absence  of  any 
universal  understanding  on  the  subject,  he  points  out  the 
difference  between  his  own  opinion  and  perhaps  that  of  the 
Assembly  which  he  was  guiding,  and  that  of  Dr.  Watts  and 
the  Church  which  has  adopted  Dr.  Watts's  hymn,  by  saying, 
"It  is  Dr.  Watts,  and  not  Moses,  who  says  God  'formed  us 
of  clay  and  made  us  men' " — evidently  forgetting  that  Dr. 
Watts  was  quoting  from  the  Bible  (Job  33 :6)  when  he 


944 


DR.  JAMES  W00DR0W. 


wrote  "formed  us  of  clay,"  as  I  have  already  had  occasion 
to  say,  in  reading  to  you  from  the  Book  of  Job. 

The  only  other  witness  to  whom  I  shall  refer  to  show  that 
there  is  no  fixed  belief  in  any  universal  understanding  is 
that  Presbyterian  ruling  elder  whose  name  is  relied  on  as 
a  tower  of  strength  by  anti-evolutionists,  Sir  J.  William 
Dawson,  Principal  of  McGill  College  at  Montreal.  He  says 
(Origin  of  World,  p.  378)  :  "The  expression  in  the  case  of 
man — 'out  of  the  dust' — would  seem  to  intimate  that  the 
human  body  was  constituted  of  merely  elementary  matter, 
without  any  previous  preparation  in  organic  forms." 
"However,"  he  continues,  "it  may  be  intended  merely  to 
inform  us  that,  while  the  spirit  is  in  the  image  of  God,  the 
bodily  frame  is  'of  the  earth  earthy/  and  in  no  respect  differ- 
ent in  general  nature  from  that  of  the  inferior  animals." 

But,  in  the  next  place,  let  us  see  whether  or  not  the 
principle  is  a  sound  one — that  the  words  in  the  standards 
must  in  all  cases  be  accepted  by  us  as  conveying  the  mean- 
ing which  they  did  to  their  authors  or  compilers,  and  that 
our  adoption  of  the  standards  requires  us  to  believe  every 
word  in  them  in  the  sense  in  which  the  Westminster  divines 
understood  them. 

Undoubtedly  in  adopting  the  Confession  of  Faith  as  con- 
taining the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Script- 
ures, it  is  right  to  say  that  we  adopt  that  system  in  its 
historic  sense.  We  may  properly  inquire  how  the  framers 
of  the  Confession  understood  the  system,  and  our  adoption 
of  it  may  be  regarded  as  an  adoption  of  what  they  meant, 
unless  indeed  the  Church  has  authoritatively  in  a  lawful 
manner  changed  that  meaning.  But  this  is  very  different 
from  saying  that  we  are  equally  bound  to  accept  all  the 
statements  in  the  Confession  that  may  be  outside  of  that 
system  in  the  sense  intended  by  them ;  or  from  saying  that 
we  are  bound  to  understand  words  used  incidentally  by 
them,  and  with  reference  to  matters  not  involved  in  the 
system  of  doctrine,  just  as  they  understood  them.  Least 
of  all  can  it  be  truly  said  that  we  are  bound  to  adopt 
erroneous  notions  which  they  entertained  in  connexion  with 
Scripture  words  which  they  may  quote. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


945 


Every  obligation  voluntarily  accepted  must  be  under- 
stood in  the  sense  intended  by  him  who  imposes  it.  But  in 
what  sense  does  the  Church  impose  the  standards  on  its 
officers?  It  asks:  "i.  Do  you  believe  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments  to  be  the  word  of  God,  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice?"  "2.  Do  you  sincerely 
received  and  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  this  Church,  as 
containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Script- 
ures?" not,  as  in  the  first  case,  "as  the  system  of  doctrine," 
but  as  "containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures."  We  justly  distinguish  between  our  belief  that 
the  Scriptures  are  the  word  of  God,  and  the  belief  of  others 
that  the  Scriptures  contain  the  word  of  God ;  and  we  rightly 
condemn  the  latter  as  erroneous  because  of  the  plain  impli- 
cation that  besides  the  word  of  God  the  Scriptures  may  also 
contain  something  else.  Thus  it  is  seen  that  he  who  at  his 
ordination  answers  the  second  question  affirmatively  does 
not  profess  to  receive  and  adopt  necessarily  everything  in 
the  Confession,  but  the  "system  of  doctrine"  contained  in  it. 

But  perhaps  we  may  see  the  truth  more  clearly  from  an 
example  or  twro.  While  it  is  highly  improbable  that  the 
Westminster  divines  decided  even  in  their  own  minds 
amongst  the  possible  meanings  of  "dust,"  it  is  certain  that 
the  "prevailing  and  recognised  view"  amongst  them  was 
that  "earth"  meant  a  fixed,  immovable  body,  around  which 
revolved  the  heaven — the  sun,  moon,  and  stars.  Hence 
those  who  adopt  the  principle  under  discussion  are  bound  to 
receive  these  words  with  these  meanings  when  they  are 
repeated  in  the  answers  to  Question  115  in  the  Larger 
Catechism  or  the  57th  in  the  Shorter  Catechism.  Will  you 
do  it?  If  not,  how  can  you  honestly  hold  me  bound  by 
that  to  which  you  will  not  submit  yourselves? 

Such  examples  abound ;  but  I  shall  present  only  one  more, 
where  no  doubt  can  be  felt  as  to  any  of  the  facts.  In  the 
191st  Answer  in  the  Larger  Catechism  we  are  taught  that 
"In  the  second  petition  (which  is,  Thy  kingdom  come),  .  .  . 
we  pray  that  .  .  .  the  Church"  may  be  "furnished  with  all 
gospel  officers  and  ordinances,  purged  from  corruption, 
countenanced  and  maintained  by  the  civil  magistrate."  Now, 


60— w 


946 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


suppose  I  disbelieve  this  and  teach  the  contrary,  as  I  do,  that 
the  Church  is  not  to  be  maintained  by  the  civil  magistrate, 
will  you  for  that  condemn  me  as  guilty  of  heresy  or  error,  of 
violating  my  vows,  or  of  holding  and  teaching  what  is  con- 
trary to  the  word  of  God?  Is  it  not  clear  to  every  member 
of  this  Assembly  that  he  does  not  hold  to  the  binding  force 
of  the  so-called  "historic  sense"  in  any  such  way  as  to 
require  him  to  adopt  the  false  views  entertained  two  hun- 
dred and  forty  years  ago  by  the  good  men  who  were  assem- 
bled in  Jerusalem  Chamber? 

Let  us  further  apply  this  "historic  sense"  argument,  as  it 
has  been  incorrectly  explained  by  some,  to  the  Bible  itself. 
In  Matt.  4:24,  the  evangelist  tells  us  that  "all  sick  people" 
including  "those  which  were  lunatic"  were  brought  to  Jesus, 
and  he  healed  them.  Here  sickness  of  a  certain  kind  is 
attributed  to  the  influence  of  the  moon,  by  the  use  of  the 
term  "lunatic."  This  expresses  the  universal  opinion  at 
that  day.  We  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  Matthew  him- 
self knew  any  better.  Are  we  willing  to  adopt  the  so-called 
"historic  sense"  here,  and  to  say  that  we  are  taught  and 
therefore  must  believe  that  lunacy  is  caused  by  the  moon? 
Do  you  not  see  to  what  infinite  absurdities  the  adoption  of 
such  a  principle  would  lead?  I  suppose  it  will  hardly  be 
maintained  that,  when  we  are  studying  the  words  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  repeated  by  Matthew,  we  must  inquire  what 
the  Holy  Spirit  meant  by  them;  but  when  we  are  studying 
the  words  of  the  Holy  Spirit  repeated  in  our  standards,  we 
must  inquire  what  the  Westminster  divines  understood 
them  to  mean,  and  what  they  understood  by  them  we  are 
bound  by  our  vows  to  believe  and  teach.  And  yet  this  is 
what  you  will  be  asked  to  do. 

But,  as  I  have  already  shown,  it  is  immaterial  what  may 
be  your  opinion  on  this  point, — you  may  think  that  you 
have  bound  yourselves  to  believe  with  the  Westminster 
divines  that  the  sun  does  move  and  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  civil  magistrate  to  maintain  the  Church;  yet,  as  these 
divines  have  not  expressed  or  in  any  way  indicated  what 
they  supposed  the  words — "dust  of  the  ground" — to  mean, 
you  may  feel  perfectly  free  to  inquire  what  they  mean  in 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


947 


the  Bible,  what  the  Holy  Spirit  means  by  them,  without 
any  fear  of  setting  at  naught  their  meaning  in  the  stand- 
ards ;  for  as  you  have  seen,  the  standards  in  this  case  do  not 
interpret,  they  only  repeat.  And  as  to  the  Holy  Spirit's 
meaning,  I  think  it  has  already  been  abundantly  shown  that, 
as  Dr.  Girardeau  has  well  said,  "Our  knowledge  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  warrant  us  in  dogmatising  upon  that  question" — as 
you  will  be  doing  if  you  uphold  the  judgment  of  the  Synod 
of  Georgia. 

It  is,  I  repeat,  undoubtedly  true  that  our  ordination  vow 
binds  us  sincerely  to  receive  the  exposition  of  the  system 
of  doctrine  set  forth  in  the  standards  in  their  "historic 
sense";  but  it  is  the  historic  sense  of  the  interpretations 
given  which  we  are  to  receive,  and  not  the  historic  sense  of 
interpretations  not  given;  the  historic  sense  of  what  the 
Westminster  divines  said,  and  not  of  what  they  did  not 
say. 

But  it  has  been  charged  that  the  opinion  which  I  have 
held  to  be  not  inconsistent  with  the  Bible  is  contrary  to  the 
word  of  God  in  that  which  is  implied  in  it  and  in  that  which 
necessarily  flows  from  it;  that  it  thus  contradicts  or  sets 
aside  the  doctrines  of  the  unity  of  the  human  race,  of  the 
fall  of  Adam,  and  of  his  federal  headship.  I  confess  my  ina- 
bility to  see  the  grounds  of  this  objection,  and  therefore  I 
fear  I  may  not  be  able  to  do  it  full  justice.  So  far  as  I  can 
see,  the  unity  of  the  human  race  depends  in  no  way  upon 
the  material  of  which  God  formed  Adam  or  the  changes 
through  which  he  had  previously  caused  that  material  to 
pass.  It  seems  to  me  to  depend,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned 
with  it,  solely  upon  the  descent  of  all  men  from  our  first 
parents  Adam  and  Eve.  If  all  men  are  Adam's  descend- 
ants, is  there  not  a  "perfect  race  unity"?  And  how  is  that 
race  unity  involved  in  the  question  whether  Adam's  body 
was  created  by  an  immediate  or  by  a  mediate  act?  What 
more  than  community  of  origin,  descent  from  the  same  pair, 
can  be  needed  to  "preserve  the  perfect  race  unity,"  which  we 
all  believe  to  exist?  Then  as  to  the  fall  of  man  and  the 
federal  headship  of  Adam — we  read  (Conf.,  chap.  6,  1-3)  : 
"Our  first  parents  .  .  .  being  the  root  of  all  mankind,  the 


948 


DR.  JAM3S  WOODROW. 


guilt  of  this  sin  was  imputed,  and  the  same  death  in  sin 
and  corrupted  nature  conveyed  to  all  their  posterity, 
descending  from  them  by  ordinary  generation."  Shorter 
Catechism,  16:  "The  covenant  being  made  with  Adam,  not 
only  for  himself,  but  for  his  posterity,  all  mankind  descend- 
ing from  him  by  ordinary  generation,  sinned  in  him,  and  fell 
with  him  in  his  first  transgression."  Is  there  anything  in 
all  this  that  in  the  remotest  way  involves  the  material  of 
which  our  federal  head  and  representative  was  made?  The 
covenant  of  life  was  entered  into  after  "God  had  created 
him,"  and  not  when  he  was  forming  his  body ;  and  its  condi- 
tion was  what  he  would  do,  and  not  what  his  body  may  have 
been  before  Adam  became  a  living  soul.  So  the  covenant 
was  made  with  Adam,  and  for  his  posterity,  not  for  anything 
that  may  have  gone  before  him.  He  fell  by  sinning  against 
God,  and  he  transmitted  the  guilt  of  that  sin  by  ordinary 
generation.  What  connexion  is  there  or  can  there  be 
between  all  this  and  the  question  whether  God  formed  his 
body  of  clay,  directly  or  indirectly,  or  of  Dr.  Armstrong's 
decayed  plants  and  animals,  "the  soil  of  the  farmer,  the 
humus  of  the  chemist"?  There  is  no  connexion;  there  can 
be  none.  The  supposed  implications  and  inferences  are 
wholly  without  the  shadow  of  foundation  in  anything  that 
I  have  ever  held  or  taught. 

But  it  may  be  said :  On  your  supposition,  there  must  have 
been  many  men  simultaneously  created ;  for  the  same  causes 
which  produced  one  body  suitable  for  transformation  into 
a  man  would  have  produced  great  numbers  of  similar 
bodies.  This  is  supposed  to  be  a  good  logical  inference  from 
my  teaching.  But  the  fact  is,  instead,  that  it  betrays  an 
entire  ignorance  of  what  is  involved  in  the  doctrine  of 
descent  with  modification.  The  first  principle  of  that  doc- 
trine is  that  the  modification  appears  in  a  single  individual 
and  not  in  many.  How  great  the  modification  may  have 
been  which  God  effected,  I  have  no  means  of  knowing;  I 
have  never  held  or  expressed  any  opinion  on  that  point. 
But  I  must  say  that  I  find  nothing  in  the  Bible  that  should 
prevent  my  believing  that  the  modification  may  have  been 
less  than  a  direct,  instantaneous  change  from  clay  to  a. 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


949 


human  body.  So  far  as  my  supposition  is  concerned,  the 
supposed  logical  inference  is  not  true.  My  supposition,  or 
rather  my  full  conviction,  is  that  God  made  but  one  pair  of 
human  beings  at  first,  namely,  Adam  and  Eve,  from  whom 
all  other  human  beings  have  descended  by  ordinary  genera- 
tion, sinning  in  Adam  as  their  federal  head,  and  having 
fallen  with  him  in  his  first  transgression.  And  there  is  not 
a  syllable  in  the  evidence  as  to  my  views,  nor  can  anything 
be  deduced  from  that  evidence  by  good  and  necessary  con- 
sequence, that  is  in  the  slightest  degree  inconsistent  there- 
with. 

The  opinion  which  the  Presbytery  of  Augusta  refused  to 
condemn  as  contrary  to  the  word  of  God  is,  that  in  creating 
the  animal  part  of  Adam,  his  body,  God  may  have  employed 
that  which  he  perhaps  had  caused  to  descend  from  other  ani- 
mals, originally  derived  from  inorganic  matter,  modifying 
so  as  to  make  it  ready  to  be  the  abode  of  the  soul,  his  own 
image,  which  he  breathed  into  it.  In  this  opinion  there  is 
nothing  expressed  or  implied  as  to  the  degree  of  modifica- 
tion, or  whether  the  change  was  effected  very  gradually  or 
per  saltum;  whether  slight  or  very  great,  is  of  no  conse- 
quence; whatever  the  nature  and  whatever  the  degree  and 
whatever  the  rate  of  the  change,  it  was  effected  by  God,  the 
Almighty  Creator;  just  as  really  and  truly  as  if  the  change 
was  from  clay  to  human  flesh  and  blood,  effected  without 
intermediate  steps,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye.  The  opinion 
is  not,  as  often  covertly  insinuated  or  more  openly  asserted, 
that  man,  the  creature  bearing  the  image  of  God,  endued 
with  knowledge,  righteousness,  and  true  holiness,  may,  for 
anything  that  the  Bible  says  to  the  contrary,  have  been 
gradually  created  by  a  series  of  transformations ;  but  only 
that  the  animal  frame  in  which  this  image  was  placed,  which 
in  many  respects  is  so  like  other  animal  bodies,  may  have 
been  so  created.  This  is  the  opinion  which  the  Presbytery 
would  not  condemn.  They  believe  that  the  Bible  does  not 
teach  specifically  God's  method  of  creation,  and  they  were 
not  willing  to  inject  into  the  Bible  their  own  opinions  and 
call  them  the  meaning  of  the  word  of  God. 


950 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


Nor  are  they  alone  in  believing  that  the  Bible  is  silent  on 
this  point.  Not  to  call  the  roll  of  our  ministers  and  ruling 
elders  generally  showing  who  so  believe,  or  of  the  Board 
of  Directors  of  the  Columbia  Seminary  in  1884  wno  so 
declared,  I  may  refer,  amongst  those  who  have  taken  no 
public  part  in  the  controversy,  to  such  names  as  those  of 
Dr.  Martin,  of  Davidson  College,  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Quarles,  of 
Washington  and  Lee  University,  and  the  Rev.  Dr.  Houston, 
your  Secretary  of  Foreign  Missions,  as  representing  no 
inconsiderable  class;  and  the  Presbytery  of  Central  Texas, 
embracing  such  men  as  the  Rev.  Dr.  Dabney  and  the  Rev. 
Dr.  Smoot,  which  declared — 

"3,  That  man  being  wholly  incompetent  to  any  creative 
act,  and  having  no  experience  of  performing  such,  the  mode 
of  God's  action  whether  in  the  creation  of  the  original  mat- 
ter, or  the  fashioning  of  animal  bodies,  or  the  creation  of 
rational  souls,  is  not  comprehensible  by  us,  so  that  God's 
wisdom  prompts  him  to  reveal  the  fact,  and  not  the  inscruta- 
ble mode  of  his  action  therein." 

I  may  perhaps  with  propriety  also  refer  to  the  opinions 
held  by  orthodox  ministers  on  the  other  side  of  the  line 
who  have  studied  this  subject  with  care. 

In  his  "Popular  Lectures,"  the  Rev.  Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge  says, 
page  165 : 

"The  answer  the  Bible  gives  as  to  the  origin  of  man  is 
very  explicit  and  very  plain,  and  yet  it  does  not  satisfy  all 
questions.  And  I  want  to  say — and  say  it  as  a  man  who  has 
devoted  his  life  to  systematic  theology — if  any  class  of  men 
have  ever  erred  in  the  direction  which  I  am  going  to  speak 
about  to-day,  systematic  theologians  have  erred  when  they 
mapped  it  out  so  sharply.  It  is  one  thing  to  stand  faithfully 
by  what  God  says;  it  is  another  thing  to  draw  inferences 
from  what  God  says." 

He  says  further,  pp.  166,  167: 

"The  immediate  creation  is  the  making  all  things  out  of 
nothing  by  the  word  of  his  power;  but  the  mediate  creation 
is  the  making  of  new  things  out  of  old  things;  that  is,  the 
building  up  of  new  things  out  of  old  elements — new  entities, 
new  species,  the  origination  of  new  forms,  new  constitutions 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


951 


out  of  the  elements  of  which  they  are  composed.  The  Bible 
says  God  made  man  out  of  the  dust  of  the  earth.  He  first 
makes  dust  and  then  he  makes  man  out  of  it.  So  God  is  the 
entire  maker  of  man.  It  would  be  very  childish  to  put  a 
literal  meaning  to  this  word  'dust,'  which  is  translated  from 
the  Hebrew,  another  language.  .  .  .  What  is  meant  is,  that 
God  made  man  out  of  preexisting  elements,  which  God  had 
himself  first  created.  These  are  everywhere :  they  are  in  the 
atmosphere ;  they  are  in  the  water ;  they  are  in  the  soil ;  and 
they  were  ever  present  from  the  time  of  the  first  creation, 
existing,  possessing  qualities  with  which  God  originally 
endowed  them;  and  it  is  out  of  these  preexisting  elements 
of  the  material  universe  that  God  formed,  by  his  own  power 
and  will,  the  body  of  man." 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Patton,  of  Princeton  Theological  Seminary, 
and  President-elect  of  Princeton  College,  says  in  the 
Presbyterian  Reviezv  for  January,  1885 : 

"Mind-wise  man  is  related  to  God;  body-wise  man  is 
made  of  the  dust  of  the  ground.  This  is  the  plain  teaching 
of  the  Bible,  and  though  evolution  were  true,  it  would  not 
conflict,  but,  on  the  contrary,  be  in  fullest  harmony  with  this 
statement.  What  the  process  was  by  which  man  was  made 
we  do  not  know ;  but  if  it  could  be  shown  that  man  is  related 
to  the  inferior  animals,  so  far  as  his  body  is  concerned,  it 
would  be  none  the  less  true  that  God  made  him  out  of  the 
dust  of  the  ground." 

The  Rev.  Dr.  S.  M.  Campbell,  pastor  at  Minneapolis,  says 
in  "The  Story  of  Creation,"  pp.  270,  271 : 

"May  we  reverently  ask  what  is  the  process  involved  in 
the  word  'formed'  here?  Did  the  Creator  take  a  quantity  of 
dust,  literally,  and  moisten  it,  and  mould  it  into  a  human 
figure  as  an  artist  moulds  his  'clay-form'?  We  shrink  a 
little  from  the  details  of  this  suggestion;  but  the  words  of 
the  narrative  admit  of  this  view,  and  it  is  one  which  a  large 
number  of  people  have  unconsciously  adopted.  We  may 
hold  such  a  view  and  still  believe  the  Bible;  but  there  are 
other  views  which  we  may  just  as  safely  adopt. 

"Man  may  have  been  formed  from  the  dust  in  quite 
another  way.    He  may  have  been  so  formed,  not  imme- 


952 


DR.  JAM£S  WOODROW. 


diately,  but  mediately.  As  those  of  our  race,  living  to-day, 
are  of  the  dust  through  previous  generations,  connecting 
them  with  a  dust-formed  ancestor,  so  that  ancestor  himself 
may  be  dust-formed  through  previous  generations  of  a  low- 
lier life,  from  which  he  may  have  been  evolved.  The  Mosaic 
account  is  precisely  as  good  for  one  of  these  theories  as  for 
the  other.  So  far  as  the  record  shows,  we  have  two  things 
to  believe,  and  no  more:  (i)  man  was  created  by  God;  and 
(2)  as  to  his  animal  nature,  he  is  an  earth  product,  like  the 
creatures  that  came  into  the  world  before  him." 

But  it  is  said  that  my  opinion  which  the  Presbytery  would 
not  condemn,  is  contrary  to  the  word  of  God,  because  it  does 
not  call  the  creation  a  supernatural  act.  Put  in  this  form, 
as  has  often  been  done,  I  would  have  to  reply  that  it  is  con- 
trary to  the  evidence,  that  it  is  not  true.  According  to  one 
of  the  articles  mentioned  in  the  indictment,  I  said : 

"Q.  3.  Do  you  believe  that  Adam  appeared  suddenly  on 
the  earth  as  a  miraculous  birth  or  creation  from  some 
inferior  animal  species? 

"Ans.  I  believe  that  Adam  as  Adam,  that  is,  as  a  being 
consisting  of  body  and  soul,  appeared  suddenly  on  the  earth 
as  a  miraculous  creation.  Between  the  hypotheses  that 
God  created  man  by  adding  the  human  soul  to  an  image 
of  clay,  and  that  he  created  him  by  adding  it  to  an  animal 
body  which  he  had  prepared  for  it,  I  regard  the  latter  as 
more  probable,  in  the  absence  of  definite  Scripture  teach- 
ing." 

But  if  it  is  confined  to  the  formation  of  the  body,  I  would 
have  to  reply,  first,  that  I  have  not  attempted  to  distinguish, 
any  more  than  the  Bible  or  the  Confession  of  Faith  do, 
between  the  natural  and  the  supernatural,  or  the  ordinary 
and  the  extraordinary.  Before  admitting  that  I  have  contra- 
dicted the  Bible,  I  would  have  to  ask  for  the  Bible  statement 
that  the  act  was  supernatural,  and  if  so,  in  what  respects.  I 
may  ask  further,  how  do  you  distinguish  between  the  natu- 
ral and  the  supernatural?  Is  not  God  equally  the  author  of 
that  which  he  accomplishes  by  his  natural  laws  and  of  that 
which  he  accomplishes  in  some  other  way,  or  directly, 
immediately?   He  never  tells  us  in  his  word  whether  what 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


953 


he  does  is  done  naturally  or  supernaturally,  in  his  ordinary 
way  of  doing  similar  things  or  in  an  extraordinary  way.  He 
leaves  us  to  find  that  out  for  ourselves.  He  merely  tells  us 
what  he  does,  and  not  how  he  does  it.  He  wishes  us  to 
recognise  him  as  the  doer,  the  creator;  he  no  where 
enlightens  us  as  to  processes. 

I  am  aware  that  there  is  much  practical  atheism  on  this 
point,  even  in  the  Church  and  amongst  those  who  in  words 
profess  to  believe  that  they  live  and  move  and  have  their 
being  in  him.  There  are  not  a  few  who  believe  that  what 
God  does  not  do  directly  and  supernaturally,  he  does  not  do 
at  all.  There  are  those  who  believe  that  God  fed  Elijah 
when  at  his  command  the  ravens  brought  him  bread  and 
flesh  morning  and  evening,  but  who  do  not  believe  prac- 
tically that  God  equally  gives  them  their  daily  bread. 
Elijah  was  fed  by  God ;  but  they  provide  their  food  for  them- 
selves— they  work  for  it  or  buy  it.  They  do  not  practically 
recognise  God  as  the  giver  of  the  air  and  the  earth,  the  rain 
and  the  sunshine,  the  bodily  and  mental  strength,  and  what- 
ever else  forms  the  channel  through  which  God  gives  them 
their  food.  So  in  the  case  before  us — they  regard  the  sup- 
position that  God  may  have  formed  Adam's  body  in  part 
or  in  whole  by  methods  by  which  he  may  have  formed 
other  animal  bodies,  as  a  suggestion  that  God  had  no  part 
whatever  in  the  formation  of  that  body.  Who  is  here 
worthy  of  condemnation — those  who  practically  deny  God 
except  where  he  exercises  his  power  in  his  rare  supernatu- 
ral acts,  or  I,  who  adoringly  recognise  his  wonder-working 
might  in  everything  from  the  atom  to  the  universe,  and  in 
every  movement  from  the  fall  of  the  leaf  to  the  rolling  of 
suns  and  stars  through  boundless  space? 

I  believe  the  Bible  declaration,  as  the  evidence  shows, 
that  "the  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground"  ; 
I  believe  every  word  contained  in  the  standards  touching 
the  formation  of  man ;  and  yet  I  am  charged  with  teaching 
that  which  is  in  conflict  with  the  Sacred  Scriptures  as  inter- 
preted in  the  standards.  What  is  the  basis  of  this  charge? 
It  is  not  anything  that  is  found  in  the  Bible  or  in  the  stand- 
ards; nothing  that  I  have  taught  is  in  conflict  with  them. 


954 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


The  basis  of  the  charge,  the  conflict  alleged,  is  with  an  addi- 
tion to  the  Bible  and  to  the  standards — that  the  Lord  God 
directly,  immediately,  instantaneously,  formed  man  of  the 
dust  of  the  ground.  The  addition  of  these  words  is  without 
the  least  authority  either  in  the  Bible  or  in  the  standards. 
If  I  am  pronounced  guilty,  it  will  be  not  because  I  con- 
tradict anything  in  them,  but  because  I  refuse  to  believe  in 
this  unauthorised  human  addition  to  God's  word ;  because  I 
believe  that  "unto  Scripture  nothing  at  any  time  is  to  be 
added  ...  by  traditions  of  men" ;  because  I  dread  lest  God 
should  add  unto  me  the  plagues  written  in  his  book,  if  I 
should  add  to  the  words  of  the  prophecy  of  that  book; 
because  believing  all  that  the  Lord  hath  spoken,  I  will  not 
believe  what  those  say  "that  prophesy  out  of  their  own 
hearts,  Hear  ye  the  word  of  the  Lord." 

Are  you  prepared  to  condemn  as  guilty  of  holding  that 
which  is  in  conflict  with  the  Sacred  Scriptures  all  who 
think  that  probably  or  even  possibly  God  may  have  created 
Adam's  body  mediately?  Are  you  so  perfectly  sure  that  the 
Synod's  interpretation  is  correct  that  you  are  prepared  to 
brand  as  believing  a  falsehood  any  and  all  who  think  it  may 
possibly  be  wrong?  This  is  precisely  what  you  will  be 
doing  if  you  do  not  sustain  this  complaint.  You  will  be 
deciding  that  every  one  who  believes  the  word  of  God  to  be 
silent  on  the  point  in  question  is  so  far  forth  denying  the 
truth  of  that  word.  You  will  not  merely  be  expressing  your 
opinion  that  the  Bible  means  that  God  instantaneously 
formed  man's  body  from  clay,  but  that  all  who  do  not  agree 
with  you — not  I  alone,  but  all — are  heretics.  Are  you  so 
absolutely  certain  that  you  are  right,  and  that  all  who  think 
it  may  possibly  be  otherwise  are  wrong,  that  you  feel  pre- 
pared to  do  that?  This  is  not  a  case  where  you  are  deciding 
which  is  the  more  probable  interpretation;  but  whether  or 
not  another  interpretation  may  not  possibly  be  true.  You 
may  all  think  that  the  interpretation  of  the  respondent  is 
preferable  to  mine ;  but  that  alone  would  not  justify  you  in 
refusing  to  sustain  my  complaint.  For  this  you  must  not 
merely  regard  it  as  preferable,  even  very  decidedly  pre- 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


955 


ferable,  but  as  the  only  interpretation  which  by  any  possi- 
bility expresses  the  intended  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

You  will  be  branding  as  guilty  not  merely  those  who 
hold  some  aspects  of  evolution  to  be  probably  true,  but 
multitudes  who  believe  evolution  in  every  aspect  to  be 
false,  and  other  multitudes  who  neither  know  nor  care 
anything  about  its  truth  or  falsehood,  but  who  believe 
the  Sacred  Scriptures  to  be  silent  respecting  the  mode  in 
which  God  formed  the  body  of  Adam  of  the  dust ;  you  will 
be  so  branding  all  who  do  not  agree  exactly  with  you,  not 
merely  in  preferring  the  respondent's  interpretation,  but  in 
maintaining  that  that  interpretation  is  certainly  absolutely 
true.   Can  you  do  that? 

Will  you  refuse  to  sustain  the  complaint  because  my 
belief  is  alleged  to  be  contrary  to  what  is  "universally  under- 
stood by  the  Church  to  be  the  declaration  of  the  word  of 
God"  respecting  a  question  in  science?  I  have  shown  that 
in  the  case  before  you  there  is  no  such  universal  under- 
standing; but  suppose  there  is,  are  you  willing  to  be  con- 
trolled by  it?  Would  you  have  been  willing  a  few  years 
ago  to  brand  one  as  a  heretic  who  believed  that  the  earth  is 
more  than  six  thousand  years  old,  because  the  Church  uni- 
versally understood  it  to  be  the  declaration  of  the  word  of 
God  that  it  is  not?  Would  you  have  been  willing  a  little 
earlier  to  brand  as  heretics  those  who  taught,  contrary  to 
the  universal  understanding  of  the  Church,  that  God  guides 
the  stars  in  their  courses,  not  by  direct  immediate  acts  of 
his  power,  but  through  the  laws  of  gravitation  which  he 
ordained?  Would  you  have  been  willing  a  little  earlier 
still  to  have  united  with  all  Christendom  in  condemning 
those  who  refused  to  believe,  with  the  dusky  Richmond 
pastor  of  to-day,  that  the  sun  does  move?  But  why  should 
I  go  on  with  this  dismal  catalogue  of  the  Church's  errors 
respecting  science ;  and  thus  show,  as  is  true,  that  the 
Church,  whenever  it  has  undertaken  to  decide  a  scientific 
question  on  scriptural  grounds,  has  never  failed  to  decide 
it  wrong?  The  reason  for  this  uniform  and  disastrous 
failure  is  not  far  to  seek — it  is  that  in  all  such  cases  the 
Church  has  assumed  the  false  principle  that  the  Bible 


956 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


teaches  science.  With  this  foundation  of  sand,  what  won- 
der that  the  house  built  upon  it  should  fall,  and  that  great 
should  be  the  fall  of  it ! 

I  implore  you  not  to  add  another  instance  to  this  sad  list. 
Shall  we  learn  nothing  from  the  dark  past?  Can  we  not  see 
by  rightly  looking  at  the  Scriptures  that  they  wholly  shut 
out  such  questions  ?  Why  then  shall  we  continue  to  under- 
stand them  to  make  declarations  respecting  matters  con- 
cerning which  they  are  invariably  silent?  The  scientific 
mistakes  are  in  themselves  of  little  moment;  but  consider 
that  every  such  mistake  made  by  the  Church  is  an  additional 
barrier,  often  insurmountable,  in  the  way  of  acceptance  of 
the  gospel  of  salvation  through  Christ  Jesus,  which  you 
have  been  commissioned  to  preach  to  every  creature.  And 
I  beseech  you  to  remember  that  the  Lord  Jesus,  the 
Head  of  the  Church,  in  commissioning  you  to  teach  all 
nations,  has  said,  "Teaching  them  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you."  If  we  add  to  what 
he  has  commanded,  "prophesying  out  of  our  own  hearts, 
Hear  ye  the  word  of  the  Lord,"  then  shall  we  hear  the  true 
word  of  the  Lord  God,  "Woe  unto  the  foolish  prophets,  that 
follow  their  own  spirit,  and  have  seen  nothing!"  But  if 
we  confine  our  teachings  to  what  the  Lord  has  commanded, 
then,  and  then  only,  may  we  claim,  and  we  shall  surely 
enjoy,  the  fulfilment  of  his  promise,  "Lo,  I  am  with  you 
alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 


Dr.  Woodrow's  Closing  Argument — Reply  to  Dr.  Adams. 

Moderator:  To  prevent  and  perhaps  correct  misappre- 
hension, it  may  be  desirable  to  remind  the  Assembly  of  the 
exact  phase  of  the  case  which  is  before  it.  It  is  a  phase 
in  which  I  am  the  actor,  the  Synod  the  respondent.  There 
are  no  charges  against  me  pending  here  or  elsewhere.  I  am 
not  appealing  from  a  judgment  rendered  against  me,  but 
complaining  against  the  annulling  of  a  verdict,  and  the 
expression  of  opinion  that  another  verdict  should  have  been 
found.  But  to  annul  a  verdict  of  "not  guilty"  is  not  to  find 
a  verdict  of  "guilty".    I  am  rectus  in  ecclesia;  nothing  even 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


957 


that  this  Assembly  can  do  could  affect  my  standing  directly; 
whatever  I  may  be  in  other  respects,  and  whatever  may  be 
in  the  future  my  relations  to  the  Church,  at  present  at  least 
I  am  your  ecclesiastical  peer.  The  utmost  that  you  can  say 
is  that  I  ought  to  have  been  declared  a  heretic ;  but  I  am  not 
now  on  trial. 

Even  if  you  should  sustain  the  Synod's  decision,  which  in 
substance  is  that  I  ought  to  have  been  pronounced  a  heretic, 
that  would  not  cause  me  to  be  one,  and  you  must  allow  me 
to  say  that,  with  all  confidence  in  your  sincerity,  I  doubt 
extremely  whether  you  or  any  one  else  would  believe  me 
to  be  one.  My  father  stood  by  your  side  in  your  distant 
Kentucky  home  firm  as  a  rock  as  a  defender  of  the  faith,  of 
the  truth  of  the  Bible  in  all  its  parts;  not  less  firmly  and 
fully  does  his  son  now  before  you  defend  the  faith  and  the 
truth  of  the  whole  Bible.  My  faith  in  that  has  never 
wavered,  as  my  studies  in  natural  science  advanced ;  what- 
ever difficulties  presented  themselves,  it  has  never  even 
occurred  to  me  to  doubt  the  Sacred  Scriptures. 

But  disregarding  my  professions,  apply  the  test,  "By  their 
fruits  ye  shall  know  them."  I  have  never  disturbed  the 
faith  of  one  of  the  hundreds  who  have  gone  forth  from 
under  my  instructions  into  the  ministry.  Ask  them.  They 
will  not  only  tell  you  No;  but  one  and  another  and  another 
all  over  the  Church  will  tell  you,  as  they  have  told  me,  and 
have  in  open  Synod  and  Presbytery  told  their  brethren,  that 
through  my  teachings  they  were  rescued  from  the  toils  of 
infidelity  which  were  dragging  them  to  ruin.  And  even  that 
Address,  which  is  the  head  and  front  of  my  offending,  it 
has  pleased  God  graciously  to  use  as  the  means  of  removing 
the  darkness  of  doubt  and  unbelief  from  many  a  mind  and 
heart,  and  of  leading  them  to  accept  the  Saviour  offered 
them  in  the  Bible  which  they  had  rejected  on  account  of 
difficulties  there  removed.  But  whatever  you  may  say  and 
think,  I  know  that  many  of  the  godliest  and  wisest  of  men, 
and  many  of  the  saintliest  and  devoutest  and  most  intelli- 
gent of  women,  who  know  the  Bible,  and  understand  my 
teachings,  fully  and  heartily  agree  with  me,  and  bid  me 
God-speed !    I  may  be  pardoned  here  for  naming  one,  long 


958 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


a  worshipper  within  these  walls,  who  has  now  entered  the 
New  Jerusalem,  who  often  in  the  vigor  of  health  expressed 
his  entire  concurrence  in  my  views,  and  his  appreciation 
of  their  value  to  the  Church ;  and  on  his  death-bed,  when  we 
both  knew  we  would  see  each  other  no  more  in  the  flesh, 
he  encouraged  me  to  go  forward  firmly  in  the  path  I  had 
been  pursuing.  The  confidence,  the  approbation,  the  love, 
of  John  Leighton  Wilson,  is  an  ample  shield  from  many  a 
dart  hurled  at  me  by  those  who  have  misunderstood  me  and 
thought  me  far  astray. 

I  wish  now,  as  briefly  as  possible,  to  notice  the  chief 
points  presented  by  the  first  representative  of  the  respond- 
ent (Dr.  Adams). 

He  objects  to  being  called  "voluntary"  prosecutor,  though 
it  is  not  easy  to  see  why.  It  is  not  a  term  of  reproach.  It  is 
the  term  quoted  from  Par.  169  of  the  Book  of  Church  Order, 
and  it  describes  accurately  as  no  other  word  could,  the  rela- 
tion of  Dr.  Adams  to  the  case  before  the  Presbytery.  So 
the  words  "deeply  interested,"  which  he  seemed  to  resent, 
are  not  quoted  from  Dr.  Girardeau's  testimony  about  him- 
self, as  he  told  you ;  but  from  Par.  169,  as  you  see  for  your- 
selves by  looking  at  my  Argument,  p.  6,  last  line.  I  clearly 
showed  he  was  "deeply  interested."  And  I  may  here  say 
he  ought  not  to  have  made  that  mistake,  for  I  gave  him 
and  sent  to  Dr.  Strickler  copies  of  my  Argument  before  I 
began  to  read  it  to  you.  Then  further,  I  did  not  impute  to 
him  personal  motives;  nor  did  I  impugn  his  motives.  I 
merely  stated  to  you  what  he  had  himself  testified  as  to  the 
motive  which  impelled  him  to  act.  He  was  right  in  saying 
that  he  had  in  his  first  answer  stated  his  object  to  be  some- 
thing different  from  effecting  my  removal  from  the  Semin- 
ary; but  you  see  in  his  answers  (pp.  11  and  12,  Record), 
beginning  with  his  apostrophe  to  his  "prophetic  soul,"  that  a 
little  gentle  pressure  in  the  way  of  questions  led  him  to 
state  the  Seminary  motive,  and  then  to  show  that  jt  was 
his  soivE  motive — that  if  I  had  left  the  Seminary,  he  would  have 
withdrawn  the  prosecution,  and  would  be  willing  that  I 
should  have  authority  to  preach  and  hold  those  doctrines  at 
the  same  time.   As  to  his  failure  to  state  all  his  motives  in 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


959 


his  first  answer,  and  as  to  the  contradictions  in  his  testi- 
mony, and  as  to  his  remark  that  if  I  was  right,  he  would  be 
unfit  for  the  ministry,  I  have  nothing  to  say — it  is  none  of 
my  business  to  draw  inferences.  That  I  was  and  am  right, 
you  can  easily  see  by  reading  again  the  Record,  pp.  11-14. 

And  you  now  know,  for  he  has  told  you  from  this  plat- 
form, that  even  then  he  did  not  state  all  his  reasons  while  on 
the  witness  stand ;  he  now  adds  that  the  reason  why  he  was 
compelled  to  prosecute  me  was  that  I  shook  my  hand  in  his 
face !  I  cannot  recall  that  dramatic  incident  so  big  with 
consequences;  but  I  suppose  it  must  have  been  one  of  my 
harmless  gestures  transformed  by  the  rich  exuberant  imag- 
ination of  my  friend.  But  it  was  an  open  honest  hand,  Mod- 
erator; it  held  no  dagger;  it  was  not  a  fist;  there  was  no 
shillaleh  in  it.  It  seems  marvellous  that  that,  and  not  the 
love  of  God's  truth,  should  have  caused  the  prosecutor  to 
institute  process  against  me,  as  he  now  tells  us  it  did. 

He  intimated  to  you  that  the  reason  he  was  willing  that 
I  should  have  authority  to  preach  while  holding  the  doc- 
trines he  condemned,  was  that  I  did  not  preach — that  the 
little  preaching  I  was  likely  to  do  would  not  hurt,  that  it 
was  as  "harmless  as  a  sucking  dove,"  to  use  his  expression. 
This  will  probably  strike  you  as  a  poor  defence.  He  was 
right  in  saying  that  I  preached  little  or  none.  But  why  did 
I  not  preach?  Twenty-seven  and  a  half  years  ago  I  was 
preaching  regularly  to  four  churches,  and  also  in  places 
where  no  Presbyterian  had  ever  preached  before,  though  at 
the  same  time  I  was  doing  full  work  as  the  Church's  Uni- 
versity Professor.  To  do  this  required  from  44  to  170  miles' 
travel  each  week,  a  large  part  of  it  by  private  conveyance. 
But  by  travelling  at  night,  I  did  it  without  neglecting  any 
duty.  While  so  engaged  the  Church  sent  me  to  Columbia 
to  teach  natural  science  in  connexion  with  revelation.  Then 
almost  immediately  the  Church  made  me  its  treasurer  of 
Home  and  Foreign  Missions,  and  during  eleven  years  I 
did  the  treasurer's  work,  and  a  large  share  of  office  work 
besides,  during  the  absence  of  the  Secretary,  Dr.  Leighton 
Wilson.  During  many  of  the  years,  besides  pursuing  time- 
consuming  investigations  in  my  special  department  of  study, 


960 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


I  performed  the  work  of  two  Professorships  in  the  Semin- 
ary. How  I  did  the  work,  you,  my  pupils,  can  tell.  The 
Directors  often  commended  me — sometimes  formally:  I 
recall  one  such  formal  commendation  from  the  Board,  much 
warmer  than  I  deserved,  in  the  handwriting  of  one  of  your 
members,  Dr.  J.  O.  Lindsay.  Always  with  a  frail  body  from 
my  youth  up,  many  of  these  years  hovering  between  life  and 
death,  I  did  the  best  I  could.  But  do  you  think  I  deserve  to 
be  held  up  to  reproach  before  you,  because,  while  I  was 
doing  in  the  Church's  service  all  I  have  told  you,  and  with 
the  Church's  encouragement  was  doing  much  more  of  which 
I  have  not  spoken,  I  could  not  do  everything?  But  pardon 
me  for  so  speaking  of  myself — it  seemed  necessary  to  neu- 
tralise the  reproach  uttered  by  the  Synod  of  Georgia's  rep- 
resentative. 

But  while  I  have  felt  obliged  to  notice  that  reproach,  I 
do  not  intend  even  to  try  to  defend  myself  against  the 
next — that  I  am  not  a  person  of  scientific  mind,  and  that  my 
teachings  are  equivocal  and  nebulous,  the  result  partly  of 
inability  to  make  myself  understood  and  partly  of  coward- 
ice. I  freely  confess  there  is  only  too  much  reason  for  all 
he  said  on  these  points,  no  one  has  been  more  fully  aware 
of  it  or  has  more  deeply  felt  it  than  myself — except  the 
cowardice :  candidly  I  don't  believe  I  am  open  to  that  impu- 
tation— do  you  ?  I  fear  God,  Moderator,  but  I  fear  nothing 
else.  And  I  fear  him  only  because  I  love  him  as  my  Father ; 
I  would  rather  die  than  offend  him  by  perverting  his  word 
or  in  any  way  consciously  running  counter  to  his  will.  But 
such  loving  fear  casts  out  all  other  fear. 

In  view  of  Dr.  Adams's  want  of  success  in  understand- 
ing anything  I  have  said,  and  in  view  of  the  notions  he 
thinks  I  have  been  teaching — for  example,  that  the  earth 
originated  from  a  cell,  that  the  universe  sprang  from  a  cell, 
and  the  like — I  think  he  was  extremely  gentle  and  mild  in 
the  way  he  characterised  me — he  let  me  off  easy,  indeed.  Tf 
I  supposed  any  one  to  entertain  views  which  he  attributes  to 
me,  my  own  vocabulary  would  fail  me,  and  I  would  have 
to  borrow  from  my  neighbors  who  use  strong  terms.  I 
must  thank  him  for  his  forbearance.    In  my  humiliation 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


961 


resulting  from  this  exposure  of  my  want  of  scientific  knowl- 
edge and  character,  I  may  find  some  comfort  from  the  past 
in  remembering  that  for  thirty-five  years  I  was  the  Synod 
of  Georgia's  chosen  teacher  of  science,  before  Dr.  Adams 
had  become  the  Synod's  scientific  leader;  and  from  the 
more  recent  past,  that  after  I  had  served  the  State  of  South 
Carolina  eleven  years  as  teacher  of  science,  two  weeks  ago 
her  representatives  again,  unsolicited  by  me,  honored  me 
by  unanimously  electing  me  Professor  of  Geology  and  Min- 
eralogy, and  placing  me  at  the  head  of  the  Faculty  of 
Liberal  Arts  and  Sciences  in  her  newly  organised  Univer- 
sity. And  two  days  ago  in  this  room  there  was  handed  me 
this  telegram  from  a  gentleman  I  have  not  the  pleasure  of 
knowing  personally,  but  whose  name  all  who  know  any- 
thing of  science  will  recognise,  "You  are  in  accord  with  the 
Biologists  of  the  world.  E.  D.  Cope."  You  will  permit 
me,  while  freely  admitting  Dr.  Adams's  juster  estimate  of 
my  mental  character  and  attainments,  to  apply  these  few 
drops  of  balm  to  the  wound  while  it  is  still  fresh. 

Before  turning  away  from  this  subject,  I  may  add  that  I 
would  place  somewhat  more  confidence  in  the  accuracy  of 
Dr.  Adams's  estimate,  if,  in  the  scientific  instruction  he 
vouchsafed  to  the  unlearned  ruling  elders,  he  had  not 
spoken  of  the  "invertebrate  fish,"  and  if,  in  explaining  to 
these  ruling  elders  the  differences  between  the  fish  and  the 
reptile  on  the  one  hand  and  the  mammalian  quadruped  on 
the  other,  he  had  not  defined  the  mammalian  as  a  "creature 
with  a  backbone."  I  believe,  on  the  whole,  that  I  am  rather 
glad  that  Dr.  Adams  does  not  regard  me  as  a  scientific 
man ;  for  that  would  imply  that  in  some  respects,  at  least, 
my  views  of  science  might  resemble  his ;  and  I  cannot  think 
of  that  without  horror. 

Now  let  me  say  a  few  words  as  to  the  origin  of  the  case 
in  Presbytery,  of  which  Dr.  Adams  gave  you  an  account. 
As  you  know,  I  was  denounced  by  almost  every  Synod  in 
our  Church  and  by  many  Presbyteries,  without  trial,  some- 
times in  my  presence,  oftener  in  my  absence,  as  guilty  of 
teaching  what  was  contrary  to  the  Sacred  Scriptures.  I 
believed  these  charges  to  be  without  foundation;  and  in 


61— W. 


962 


DR.  JAM£S  W00DR0W. 


accordance  with  Par.  162  of  our  Rules  of  Discipline,  I 
demanded  an  investigation  by  the  Presbytery  to  whose 
authority  I  am  subject.  That  Presbytery,  under  the  lead  of 
Dr.  Adams,  refused,  after  investigation,  either  to  institute 
process  against  me,  or  to  say  there  were  no  grounds  for 
instituting  process.  But  in  the  face  of  Dr.  Adams's  oppo- 
sition, the  Synod  required  the  Presbytery  to  act  in  accord- 
ance with  my  demand.  After  renewed  investigation,  the 
Presbytery  declared  there  were  no  grounds  for  instituting 
process.  Dr.  Adams  then  submitted  the  indictment  against 
me  as  "voluntary"  prosecutor.  Four  months  later  the  Pres- 
bytery, after  full  trial  as  set  forth  in  the  Record,  declared  me 
innocent,  as  I  am.  My  demand  was  one  which  no  honorable 
man  could  consistently  with  honor  fail  to  make ;  but  it  was 
not  merely  a  demand  for  trial,  as  Dr.  Adams  has  told  you. 
What  he  says  is  true,  as  far  as  it  goes ;  but  it  is  only  a  half 
truth.  My  demand  was  for  trial  or  vindication;  and  my  Pres- 
bytery vindicated  me.    There  is  the  whole  truth. 

Proceeding  in  the  examination  of  Dr.  Adams's  argument, 
notice  next  what  is  said  as  to  my  change  of  views.  When 
I  was  called  to  the  Seminary,  I  was  not  a  fossil,  though  I 
had  had  much  to  do  with  fossils,  as  I  have  had  since  and 
still  have.  It  is  true  that  my  views  had  changed,  as  I  state 
on  the  first  page  of  my  Address.  But  observe,  they  have 
never  changed  in  the  slightest  degree  as  to  the  absolute 
truthfulness  of  the  Bible,  and  as  to  our  standards  being  a 
just  summary  of  the  doctrines  contained  in  the  Bible — never 
by  a  hair's  breadth.  What  was  the  change,  then,  alluded 
to?  It  was  to  the  preponderance  of  the  evidence  for  and 
against  the  doctrine  of  evolution.  As  I  continued  year  after 
year  to  study  that  evidence,  I  found  the  parts  for  the  doc- 
trine constantly  increasing,  and  the  parts  against  it  con- 
stantly fading  away;  so  that,  though  of  an  extremely  cau- 
tious and  conservative  disposition,  on  a  review  of  the  whole 
case,  when  preparing  my  Address,  loyalty  to  reason  and  to 
truth  compelled  me  to  recognise  the  preponderance  of  the 
evidence  in  favor  of  the  truth  of  the  doctrine.  Not  that  I 
could  say  that  I  regarded  it  as  certainly  true ;  there  are  still 
unsolved  problems  connected  with  it;  there  may  be  evidence 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


963 


which  has  not  yet  come  in;  but  as  the  case  then  stood,  I 
could  not  help  saying  that  it  was  "probably  true" ;  and  let 
me  say,  now,  Moderator,  that  all  my  investigations  since 
that  time  have  gone  on  increasing  that  probability.  But 
how  did  or  could  this  change  of  view  affect  my  teaching  as 
to  the  connexion  between  natural  science  and  revelation? 
Not  in  the  slightest  degree.  As  many  of  you  know,  I  had 
long  before  been  teaching  you  that  it  was  a  matter  of 
indifference  to  you  whether  evolution  is  true  or  false;  that 
if  true,  it  does  not  contradict  the  Bible;  if  false,  the  Bible 
does  not  suggest  that  you  believe  it;  that  therefore  as 
believers  in  the  Bible  and  in  our  standards  you  were  not  in 
the  least  concerned  in  its  truth  or  falsehood,  any  more  than 
with  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the  Copernican  astronomy. 
Hence  you  see  that  my  change  of  views  was  of  no  more 
consequence  theologically  or  scripturally  than  the  change  in 
Dr.  Adams's  views  of  which  he  has  told  you— from  his  mis- 
take that  I  knew  something  of  science  to  his  present  knowl- 
edge that  I  do  not. 

As  to  the  "John  Smith"  illustration — there  can  be  no 
doubt  of  the  fact  that  the  fellow  is  either  a  thief  or  he  is 
not.  But  there  may  be  frequent  changes  in  my  mind  as  to 
whether  I  should  believe  he  is  or  not.  When  I  hear  the 
first  faint  grounds  of  suspicion,  I  may  think  he  possibly 
has  been  stealing  and  should  be  arrested.  When  I  hear  a 
little  more  evidence  before  the  magistrate,  while  not  able  to 
say  that  he  is  a  thief,  I  believe  he  should  be  committed  for 
trial.  At  the  trial  as  one  witness  after  another  testifies, 
the  probability  that  he  is  a  thief  is  steadily  increasing;  but 
it  may  not  be  until  the  last  witness  has  spoken  before  me 
as  a  juror  that  I  can  say  there  is  no  longer  any  reasonable 
doubt  that  he  did  steal  that  hat  and  should  be  convicted. 
But  there  are  many  minds  not  accustomed  to  careful  rea- 
soning which  are  incapable  of  recognising  these  steps  in  the 
discovery  of  truth,  which  regard  the  existence  of  a  fact  and 
the  knowledge  of  it  as  necessarily  co-extensive,  and  which 
look  upon  a  cautiously  expressed  opinion  that  a  doctrine  is 
"probably  true,"  and  an  unwillingness  to  go  farther,  as  a 


964 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


proof  of  cowardice  and  a  dishonest  concealment  of  the 
truth. 

I  come  now  to  the  respondent's  quotations  from  my 
writings  to  show  my  views.  And  first  to  that  from  page 
15,  which  was  presented  to  prove  that  I  believe  evolution 
to  be  certainly,  and  not  merely  probably,  true.  I  do  not 
think  it  makes  much  difference  as  to  my  guilt;  but  it  is 
important  as  showing  the  trustworthiness  of  the  respond- 
ent's reasoning.  Observe,  then,  that  I  have  just  said,  p.  14, 
that  the  Bible  teaches  nothing  on  the  subject  either  way; 
and  then  I  point  out  that  on  another  and  a  common  inter- 
pretation of  the  Scriptures,  which  interpretation  I  reject,  the 
truth  of  evolution  would  inevitably  follow.  Can  you  in  this 
safely  trust  the  respondent's  reasoning,  when  he  attributes  to 
me  the  conclusion  thus  reached? 

Then  he  further  quotes  my  Address,  pp.  23  and  25,  as 
showing  how  utterly  false  my  teachings  are,  where  I  say : 

"We  cannot  go  back  to  the  beginning,  but  we  can  go  a 
long  way.  The  outline  thus  obtained  shows  us  that  all  the 
earlier  organic  beings  in  existence,  through  an  immense 
period,  as  proved  by  an  immense  thickness  of  layers  resting 
on  each  other,  were  of  lower  forms,  with  not  one  as  high  or 
of  as  complex  an  organisation  as  the  fish.  Then  the  fish 
appeared,  and  remained  for  a  long  time  the  highest  being 
on  the  earth.  Then  followed  at  long  intervals  the  amphib- 
ian, or  frog-like  animal,  the  reptile,  the  lowest  mammalian, 
then  gradually  the  higher  and  higher,  until  at  length 
appeared  man,  the  head  and  crown  of  creation." — Address, 
P-  23- 

"While  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  human  embryo  is  at  one 
period  an  invertebrate,  then  a  fish,  afterwards  a  reptile,  a 
mammalian  quadruped,  and  at  last  a  human  being,  yet  it  is 
true  that  it  has  at  one  period  the  invertebrate  structure,  then 
successively,  in  a  greater  or  less  number  of  particulars,  the 
structure  of  the  fish,  the  reptile,  and  the  mammalian  quad- 
ruped. And  in  many  of  these  particulars  the  likeness  is 
strikingly  close." — Address,  p.  25. 

Moderator,  shall  I  defend  what  I  there  say?  Don't  you 
know  the  truth  of  every  word  that  I  have  read  ?   Don't  you 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


965 


know  that  these  are  elementary  truths,  the  result  of  direct 
observation,  which  any  primer  of  geology  and  biology 
teaches?  That  they  can  no  more  be  contradicted  than  my 
statements  that  you  are  sitting  in  a  chair,  that  I  am  standing 
up,  that  you  were  once  chaplain  to  the  United  States  Senate, 
and  so  on?  Why,  these  are  facts  that  even  you  ruling 
elders  may  be  supposed  to  know  without  explanation  from 
my  scientific  friend.  Will  you  say  my  Presbytery  should 
have  condemned  me  as  guilty  of  heresy  for  believing  these 
facts?  I  know  you  will  not,  Moderator;  for  I  heard  you 
tell  President  Gilman  last  Monday  that  Presbyterians 
encourage  the  study  of  biology  and  geology.  I  was  glad  to 
have  my  memory  refreshed  by  hearing  you  say  that; 
though  I  used  to  think  I  knew  it,  I  had  been  tempted  to 
forget  it;  for  University  instruction  in  such  studies  is  pro- 
hibited by  Presbyterian  authorities  over  which  you  claim 
control  in  Columbia  through  Dr.  Adams  and  other  mem- 
bers of  this  Assembly. 

Dr.  Adams  next  attempted  to  make  you  believe  that  I 
have  denied  that  God  created  either  the  man  or  the  horse 
(pp.  15  and  16,  Edit.  Art.).  Well,  if  you  can  read  such  denial 
into  those  passages,  my  utterances  must  be  nebulous  indeed. 
As  to  the  similarity  of  the  man's  body  and  the  horse's  body 
which  Dr.  Adams  thinks  Presbytery  should  have  con- 
demned me  for  asserting,  I  do  not  see  how  I  am  to  blame : 
I  did  not  make  either  the  man  or  the  horse.  You  are  too 
good  a  Kentuckian  not  to  know  and  admire  the  noble 
quadruped,  and  not  to  know  the  points  of  resemblance. 
And  as  to  the  assertion  of  the  identity  of  origin,  I  am  not  to 
blame  either:  it  is  the  Bible  that  makes  the  assertion — 
and  I  did  not  write  the  Bible.  It  is  the  Bible  that  says, 
Gen.  2 :7,  "The  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground,"  and  Gen.  2:19,  "Out  of  the  ground  the  Lord  God 
formed  every  beast  of  the  field" — and  the  horse  is  one  of 
these  beasts,  isn't  it?  Why  should  the  Presbytery  have 
condemned  me  for  repeating  what  the  Bible  says? 

But  next  Dr.  Adams  tells  you  that  I  ask  you  to  engraft 
my  probable  belief  as  to  Adam's  body  on  the  Scriptures, 
that  I  want  you  to  teach  it  to  the  Sunday-school  children, 


966 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


preach  it  from  your  pulpits,  and  put  it  in  the  standards. 
Now,  don't  you  know  that  is  not  so?  Do  I  need  to  stop  to 
prove  it?  Does  not  the  evidence  show  over  and  over  that 
what  I  hold  is  that  the  Scriptures  are  silent  on  the  subject, 
and  therefore  that  my  supposition,  whether  true  or  false, 
cannot  contradict  the  Scripture's  silence?  But  Dr.  Adams 
must  know  this  as  well  as  I  do ;  for  he  proceeds  to  ask  you 
to  condemn  me  for  thinking  it  may  be  true  while  I  maintain 
that  it  is  not  found  in  the  Bible.  Why  he  utters  these  con- 
tradictory statements,  I  do  not  know,  and  it  is  not  my  busi- 
ness to  draw  inferences.  He  exclaims  that  he  wants  what- 
ever he  believes  to  be  in  the  Bible ;  and  seems  to  blame  me 
for  believing  anything  I  cannot  find  there.  Now,  while  the 
Bible  often  speaks  of  the  sun  and  the  stars,  the  thunder  and 
lightning,  will  you  blame  me  for  believing  principles  of 
astronomy,  electricity,  and  so  on,  which  I  cannot  find  there  ? 
Why  stop  with  these  subjects?  Why  not  go  on  to  biology? 
— always  provided  the  principles  claiming  our  belief  do  not 
contradict  the  Bible. 

In  the  next  place,  Dr.  Adams  undertakes  to  set  forth  the 
principles  of  interpretation  by  which  we  should  be  guided; 
but  instead  of  appealing  to  that  which  is  asserted  in  our 
standards  to  be  the  only  infallible  rule,  he  dons  the  garb  of 
the  gentlemen  of  the  robe,  and  comes  to  us  with  Potter's 
Dwarris,  which  he  tells  us  is  a  great  authority  in  the  civil 
courts.  If  the  usages  and  principles  of  the  civil  courts  are 
to  be  appealed  to,  might  it  not  be  well  to  begin  a  little 
farther  back,  and  ask  where  in  the  history  of  jurisprudence 
it  was  ever  before  attempted,  as  in  this  case,  to  disturb  a 
verdict  of  acquittal — from  Moses  to  Lycurgus,  from  Lycur- 
gus  to  Justinian,  from  Justinian  to  Blackstone,  from  Black- 
stone  to  Taney  and  this  day  of  State  Codes?  Like  the  strip- 
ling David,  when  he  put  off  the  armor  he  had  not  proved, 
I  shall  not  attempt  to  imitate  my  learned  brother's  motions 
under  the  borrowed  garment.  But  let  us  watch  him  for  a 
few  moments,  and  perhaps  we  can  still  recognise  him  under 
this  strange  covering. 

i  He  tells  us  that  his  new  authority,  Potter's  Dwarris,  says 
first:  "The  first  general  maxim  of  interpretation  is  that  it 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


967 


is  not  permitted  to  interpret  what  has  no  need  of  inter- 
pretation." He  then  applies  this  to  the  words,  "Formed 
the  body  of  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground."  Does  this 
need  interpretation?  No,  he  says;  then  it  is  not  permitted 
to  interpret  it.  Let  us  apply  it  in  another  case.  "This  is 
my  body/'  Is  not  every  word  here  simple  and  easy  to  be 
understood?  How,  then,  can  it  need  interpretation?  It 
does  not  need  interpretation,  say  the  overwhelming  majority 
of  those  who  are  called  Christians  throughout  the  world; 
and  they  excommunicate  you  if  you  say  that  it  does.  Will 
you  here  follow  the  majority  and  our  friend  who  is  carrying 
Potter's  Dwarris  under  his  borrowed  garb?  He  would 
here  not  follow  an  application  of  the  principle  himself.  But 
take  a  case  where  he  does  follow  it,  and  see  whether  you 
will  be  any  more  willing  to  be  led  by  him.  In  Isaiah  65, 
the  Holy  Spirit  has  set  before  us  a  picture  of  the  new  heav- 
ens and  the  new  earth,  and  the  new  Jerusalem,  which  the 
Lord  has  prepared  for  those  who  love  and  trust  in  him,  to 
which  we  can  look  forward  when  surrounded  with  trials  and 
troubles,  when  sorrow  and  weeping  are  our  lot;  towards 
which  we  can  gaze  with  sweet  longing,  as  we  cry,  "O 
mother  dear,  Jerusalem,  when  shall  we  come  to  thee?" 

And  now  what  does  the  respondent  make  of  this  heavenly 
vision,  with  the  help  of  his  Potter's  Dwarris?  He  trans- 
forms it  and  drags  it  down  into  a  scientific  lesson  on  animal 
physiology  and  anatomy,  and  the  chemical  character  of 
the  serpent's  food.  It  will  be  a  state  where  there  will  be  the 
same  animals  as  now,  but  none  of  them  will  die.  The  lion 
with  his  sharp  teeth  and  claws  and  simple  digestive  appar- 
atus, at  whatever  disadvantage,  must  eat  straw  like  the  bul- 
lock. The  serpent,  still  under  the  curse,  and  unable  in  the 
absence  of  death  to  obtain  animal  food,  must  eat  inorganic 
matter,  which  it  cannot  digest,  and  yet  it  cannot  find  relief 
in  death.  Such  and  such  like  are  the  results  the  Synod  of 
Georgia  would  force  on  us  through  its  representative  armed 
with  his  Potter's  Dwarris.  Shall  we  not  rush  up  out  of 
these  dank  pestilential  caverns  into  the  clear  light  of 
heaven;  and  casting  off  the  armor  we  have  not  proved,  in 
which  we  cannot  go,  which  trips  us  at  every  step,  seek  the 


968 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


way  into  the  fields  of  spiritual  truth  and  joy,  guided  by 
the  finger-boards  which  the  Holy  Spirit  has  everywhere 
scattered  around,  illuminated  by  inscriptions  from  his  own 
blessed  word?  Thus,  and  thus  only,  by  comparing  Script- 
ure with  Scripture,  shall  we  safely  find  our  way  to  the 
heavenly  goal;  and  see  again  with  undimmed  eyes,  or 
dimmed  only  with  tears  of  joy,  the  city  of  our  God,  Jerusa- 
lem, our  mother  dear. 

But  we  must  return  for  a  moment  to  the  examination  of 
the  deductions  from  this  authority.  We  are  told  it  appears 
that  the  thought  of  the  author  constitutes  the  historic  sense. 
I  do  not  care  to  inquire  whether  this  is  Dr.  Adams's  notion 
or  that  of  Potter's  Dwarris.  But  to  whomsoever  it  owes 
its  birth,  isn't  it  a  little  odd?  Wouldn't  you  have  supposed 
"historic  sense"  to  mean  the  sense  learned  from  history ?  I 
certainly  would.  Yet  here  is  a  historic  sense  that  has  no 
history — a  sort  of  lucus  a  non  lucendo,  I  suppose;  called 
snow-ball,  because  it  is  coal  black.  A  historic  sense,  if 
there  is  any  meaning  in  words,  must  be  learned  from  the 
history  of  the  interpretations  beginning  at  the  beginning 
of  the  period  in  question,  and  continuing  down  the  stream 
of  time  to  the  present.  But  how  is  it  in  the  case  before  us? 
Why,  history  has  been  absolutely  silent,  voiceless,  dumb. 
Is  not  that  an  odd  historic  sense? 

But  even  if  you  were  quite  sure  that  the  sense  in  which 
the  Westminster  divines  understood  the  words  was  what 
you  suppose,  as  I  have  already  shown,  you  could  not  fairly 
and  honorably  require  me  to  accept  that  sense,  unless  you 
yourselves  obey  the  same  rule,  and  in  accordance  with  it 
believe  that  the  sun  and  stars  revolve  around  a  fixed  immov- 
able earth,  as  the  same  divines  certainly  believed  when  they 
transferred  the  Fourth  Commandment  to  the  Catechisms. 
For  my  part,  I  shall  be  satisfied  if  I  shall  have  ascertained 
the  mind  of  the  Spirit  by  the  application  of  the  oft  quoted 
rule  of  interpretation  which  the  Westminster  divines  placed 
in  our  hands. 

I  have  to  confess  I  could  not  understand  Dr.  Adams's 
facetious  remarks  as  to  the  male  and  female,  the  him  and 
the  her  and  the  it,  and  so  on ;  and,  therefore,  I  am  unable  to 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


969 


reply.  For  a  very  different  reason.  I  do  not  answer  his 
question,  "Was  God  joking?"  and  his  remark  as  to  the 
"serpent's  winking."  But  I  ask  you  to  notice  his  admission 
that  "dust,"  in  the  curse  of  the  serpent,  does  not  mean 
"dust,"  but  chiefly  something  else,  with  dust  on  the  outside. 
How  much  or  how  little  might  there  be  on  the  outside,  while 
yet  the  term  was  properly  applicable  to  the  whole?  But  you 
see  he  gives  up  his  case  on  this  point,  when  he  admits 
that  dust  means  flesh  and  blood  with  a  little  dust  on  the 
outside.  But  what  reason  has  he  to  suppose  that  the  food 
of  the  serpent  is  any  more  covered  with  dust  than  that  of 
any  other  animal  ?  He  has  none.  Perhaps  at  the  time  when 
he  would  have  been  most  likely  to  observe  such  matters,  he 
may  not  have  had  the  opportunity  on  account  of  the  pro- 
verbial absence  of  the  serpent  from  the  blessed  isle  which 
was  then  his  happy  home.  But  I  suppose  most  of  you 
know  that  the  serpent  is  peculiarly  dainty  as  to  the  cleanli- 
ness of  his  food.  But  where  do  you  learn  that  the  curse  fell 
upon  all  serpents?  This  serpent,  which  tempted  our  first 
mother,  the  Bible  tells  us,  was  the  devil.  We  learn  from 
many  places  in  the  Scriptures  that  the  curse  which  fell  on 
Adam  descended  to  his  posterity;  but  where  are  we  told 
that  all  serpents  were  cursed  in  that  old  serpent,  the  devil, 
as  their  federal  head?  There  were  serpents  that  had  gone 
on  the  belly  long,  long  before  Adam  was  created ;  there  were 
hundreds  of  kinds  contemporaneous  with  him,  though  he 
was  formed  after  them.  Did  the  curse  fall  on  all  these? 
And  there  are  transitional  forms  between  the  serpents  and 
other  reptiles — how  far  in  these  directions  did  the  curse 
extend?  Can  you  not  see  how  wholly  foreign  to  the  design 
of  the  Scriptures  are  all  such  considerations,  and  into  what 
inextricable  confusion,  and,  may  I  not  say,  absurdities,  the 
application  of  the  scientific  method  of  interpretation  would 
here  again  lead  you?   Will  you  adopt  it? 

But  the  respondent  has  told  you  that  I  deny  the  clause  in 
the  standards,  "After  God  had  made  all  other  creatures,  he 
created  man,"  for  the  reason  that  according  to  my  supposi- 
tion, Adam's  body  had  been  in  existence  ages  before  some 
other  creatures  were  made.   This  would  be  quite  true,  pro- 


970 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


vided  it  is  proper  to  call  that  Adam's  body  which  subse- 
quently became  Adam's  body.  To  illustrate :  I  suppose  that 
most  of  you  believe,  with  me,  though  in  opposition  to  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  that  God  created  all  the  matter  in  the 
world  long  ages  before  he  created  man.  The  matter  thus 
created  included  that  portion  which  he  subsequently  formed 
into  the  body  of  man.  Would  it  be  proper  to  say  that  this 
portion  was,  at  the  moment  of  its  creation,  the  body  of 
Adam?  If  so,  then  you  say,  according  to  the  respondent, 
that  God  did  not  create  man  after  he  had  made  all  other 
creatures,  but  simultaneously  with  them.  If  not,  then  when 
should  that  portion  be  called  Adam's  body?  Would  there 
be  any  propriety  in  so  calling  it  at  any  intermediate  point 
between  its  exnihilation — when  it  was  first  brought  into 
existence — and  the  moment  when  it  became  the  organised 
receptacle  for  the  soul?  And  could  it  make  any  difference 
as  to  these  points  whether  the  portion  of  matter  in  question 
remained  inorganic  all  the  while,  or  was  passing  through 
cycle  after  cycle  of  change  from  inorganic  to  vegetable, 
from  vegetable  to  animal,  and  back  again?  Is  it  not  plain 
that  there  was  no  such  thing  as  Adam's  body  possible,  until 
Adam  began  to  exist  soul  and  body?  Would  it  be  proper 
to  say  that  your  bodies  were  recently  roaming  over  the 
plains  of  the  West,  were  growing  in  the  wheat-fields  of 
Dakota  and  Virginia,  were  swimming  in  Chesapeake  Bay? 
Equally  absurd  would  it  be  to  say  that  there  was  an  Adam's 
body  before  there  was  an  Adam.  Therefore  I  repeat,  in  all 
good  conscience,  as  expressing  my  exact  belief,  "After  God 
had  made  all  other  creatures,  he  created  man,  male  and 
female ;  formed  the  body  of  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground 
and  the  woman  of  the  rib  of  the  man." 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


971 


The  Presbytery  of  Aug'usta. 


The  Presbytery  of  Augusta  met  at  Madison,  Ga.,  last 
Friday  night,  [Oct.  19,  1888]  and  adjourned  on  Monday 
afternoon,  after  a  very  harmonious  session. 

At  the  request  of  Moderator  J.  A.  Billups,  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Adams  preached  the  opening  sermon.  After  sermon,  the 
Moderator  called  on  Professor  Woodrow  to  offer  the  con- 
stituting prayer. 

During  the  session  every  minister  was  present,  except  the 
Rev.  D.  McQueen,  who  was  detained  at  home  by  sickness 
in  his  family.  Eight  ruling  elders  were  present.  Professor 
Woodrow  was  unanimously  elected  Moderator,  the  Rev.  J. 
D.  A.  Brown,  Temporary  Clerk,  and  the  Rev.  T.  M.  Lowry, 
Acting  Stated  Clerk.  .  .  . 

Professor  Woodrow  presented  the  following  communica- 
tion : 

Madison,  Gav  Oct.  14,  1888. 
To  the  Presbytery  of  Augusta: 

Dear  Brethren — As  you  have  doubtless  learned  from 
official  sources,  the  Synod  of  Georgia  in  November,  1886, 
adopted  the  following  report : 

"Your  Committee,  appointed  by  Synod  to  bring  in  a  min- 
ute expressive  of  the  action  of  Synod  upon  the  complaint 
of  William  Adams,  D.  D.,  against  the  decision  of  Augusta 
Presbytery  in  the  case  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the 
United  States  against  James  Woodrow,  D.  D.,  and  to  report 
the  judgment  of  Synod  thereon;  report  that  the  complaint 
be  sustained,  for  the  reason  that  the  finding  and  judgment 
of  the  Presbytery  are  contrary  to  the  evidence  and  the  law, 
in  that  the  evidence  before  the  Presbytery  showed  that  the 
belief  of  the  said  defendant,  James  Woodrow,  D.  D.,  as  to 
the  origin  of  the  body  of  Adam,  was  contrary  to  the  word  of 
God  as  interpreted  in  the  standards  of  the  Church;  and  it 
is  therefore  ordered,  that  the  said  verdict  and  judgment  of 
the  Presbytery  is  hereby  annulled." 


972 


DR.  JAMES  WOODROW. 


I  complained  against  the  decision,  and  in  May,  1888,  the 
General  Assembly  at  Baltimore  refused  to  sustain  my  com- 
plaint, and  adopted  the  following  judgment : 

"Whereas  the  Presbytery  of  Augusta  did  find  the  Rev. 
James  Woodrow,  D.  D.,  not  guilty  of  the  charge  preferred 
against  him  by  the  Rev.  W.  Adams,  D.  D.,  wherein  he  was 
charged  with  teaching  and  promulgating  opinions  and  doc- 
trines in  conflict  with  the  Scriptures  as  interpreted  in  our 
standards,  the  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  Larger  and  Shorter 
Catechisms  of  the  Westminster  Assembly;  that  he  did  on 
divers  occasions  mentioned  in  the  charge  teach  and  promul- 
gate that  the  body  of  Adam  was  probably  the  product  of 
evolution  from  the  body  of  some  lower  animal ;  and  whereas 
the  Synod  of  Georgia,  upon  complaint  of  the  Rev.  Wm. 
Adams,  D.  D.,  did  annul  such  action  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Augusta,  which  judgment  of  the  Synod  of  Georgia  is 
brought  to  this  General  Assembly  by  complaint  of  the 
Rev.  James  Woodrow,  D.  D. :  Now,  therefore,  it  is  the 
judgment  of  the  General  Assembly  that  Adam's  body  was 
directly  fashioned  by  Almighty  God  out  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground  without  any  natural  animal  parentage  of  any  kind. 
The  wisdom  of  God  prompted  him  to  reveal  the  fact,  while 
the  inscrutable  mode  of  his  action  has  not  been  revealed. 
While,  therefore,  the  Church  does  not  propose  to  touch, 
handle,  or  conclude  any  question  of  science  which  belongs  to 
God's  kingdom  of  nature,  she  must,  by  her  divine  consti- 
tution, see  that  these  questions  are  not  thrust  on  her  to 
break  the  silence  of  Scripture  and  supplement  it  by  any 
scientific  hypothesis  concerning  the  mode  of  God's  being 
or  acts  in  creation,  which  are  inscrutable  to  us.  It  is,  there- 
fore, ordered  that  the  complaint  in  this  case  be  not  sus- 
tained, and  the  judgment  of  the  Synod  of  Georgia  be,  and 
the  same  is  hereby,  in  all  things  affirmed." 

By  these  decisions  your  verdict  of  "Not  guilty"  in  the 
above  case  has  been  annulled.  Whether  or  not  they  render 
it  necessary  for  you  to  take  further  action,  it  is  for  you 
to  decide.  I  suppose  that  it  is  clear  that  nothing  has  yet 
been  done  which  in  any  way  affects  my  ecclesiastical  stand- 
ing.   Should  you  think  otherwise,  and  should  you  deem  it 


HIS  TEACHINGS. 


973 


proper  to  reopen  the  case,  in  order  to  prevent  embarrass- 
ment as  to  evidence,  etc.,  I  beg  leave  now  respectfully  to 
state  that  I  still  entertain  the  views  and  beliefs  set  forth 
in  the  documents  enumerated  in  the  indictment  against  me, 
copies  of  which,  with  the  record  of  the  cause,  I  herewith 
submit.  Your  fellow  servant, 

James  Woodrow. 

This  communication  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Bills  and  Overtures,  which  subsequently  through  Ruling 
Elder  Billups,  made  the  following  report : 

"That  the  ecclesiastical  standing  of  Dr.  Woodrow  having 
been  in  no  respect  impaired  by  the  action  either  of  the 
Synod  of  Georgia  or  of  the  General  Assembly,  Presbytery 
sees  no  reason  to  take  any  further  action  in  his  case." 

This  report  was  unanimously  adopted. 


THE  END. 


Date  Due 

H 

CARApre 

c 

Library  Bureau  Cat.  no.  Ii37 

■ 


922.  E    W6S3  228675 


University  Library 


